So along with the recommendations, he wants to see the End of Life Bill extended. He says the narrow threshold has excluded people with terminal diagnoses who are suffering intolerably despite being in an irreversible decline. They are not going to get better. It's just going to take them a very long time to die. His new and improved bill would replace the arbitrary cutoff at six months with a test that reflects what he calls medical reality, recognising that death doesn't always follow a calendar.
The review into the Act, which was released at the end of 2024 found that the Act was working pretty much as it was intended. More than 2,400 people had requested an assisted death at the time of the review. More than 970 had received an assisted death since the Act came into force on the 7th of November in 2021. There were some minor tweaks that could be made and those would be incorporated into Todd Stephenson's bill, but overall, the review found that the bill was achieving its primary purpose.
However, a report out today from Alex Penk, who is the CEO of Ethos, a registered charity that offers advice, advocacy and education to promote the rights of conscience, religion and belief, says the law already goes too far and certainly does not need to be extended. The report, Penk's report, says assisted dying is already highly controversial. He says most doctors don't want to be involved. I can certainly believe that some doctors would not want to be involved, but I'd be interested to know if that is in fact correct. There would be a range of views across the medical profession when it comes to assisted dying, just as there is in the general population. I can understand some who would not want a bar of it and some who would be happy and see it as a as a generous service.
Penk says the bill would introduce euthanasia for long term conditions and disabilities like chronic heart conditions, frailty, diabetes, renal failure, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease. He says this would force doctors and care facilities into more conscience conflicts. He says doctors have to use ethical judgment all the time, but the bill sends a message they're just supposed to do what the State tells them and there'll be a real risk it'll force ethically minded people out of medicine. I cannot see it as the State dictating. How is the State dictating? The State has put a framework in place to ensure that it's only the person who wants assisted dying who can make that request. They have to go through hoops before they can be granted that request. It's not automatic. There are really strict criteria and doctors don't have to administer end of life injections or however it is they do it – I'm assuming it's injections. They don't have to perform the act that would take a life. They can say, No, I don't believe in it. I would rather save a life than end it. Not for me. I'll give you the name of a doctor who does believe in it."
So how is the State dictating? It's not telling doctors they must kill their patients. It's not telling people they must die if they have a long-term degenerative disease. As far as I'm aware, it's about a person's choice. And on the ethics side of thing, why is it ethical to keep a person alive when they don't want to be, but they don't fit that six-month criteria? Alex Penk is perfectly within his rights to choose not to take an early exit. Doctors are perfectly within their rights to say they'd rather save lives than end them. And I want to continue to have the right and have it improved to be able to call it quits when there is no longer any value for me to be here.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
The review into the Act, which was released at the end of 2024 found that the Act was working pretty much as it was intended. More than 2,400 people had requested an assisted death at the time of the review. More than 970 had received an assisted death since the Act came into force on the 7th of November in 2021. There were some minor tweaks that could be made and those would be incorporated into Todd Stephenson's bill, but overall, the review found that the bill was achieving its primary purpose.
However, a report out today from Alex Penk, who is the CEO of Ethos, a registered charity that offers advice, advocacy and education to promote the rights of conscience, religion and belief, says the law already goes too far and certainly does not need to be extended. The report, Penk's report, says assisted dying is already highly controversial. He says most doctors don't want to be involved. I can certainly believe that some doctors would not want to be involved, but I'd be interested to know if that is in fact correct. There would be a range of views across the medical profession when it comes to assisted dying, just as there is in the general population. I can understand some who would not want a bar of it and some who would be happy and see it as a as a generous service.
Penk says the bill would introduce euthanasia for long term conditions and disabilities like chronic heart conditions, frailty, diabetes, renal failure, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease. He says this would force doctors and care facilities into more conscience conflicts. He says doctors have to use ethical judgment all the time, but the bill sends a message they're just supposed to do what the State tells them and there'll be a real risk it'll force ethically minded people out of medicine. I cannot see it as the State dictating. How is the State dictating? The State has put a framework in place to ensure that it's only the person who wants assisted dying who can make that request. They have to go through hoops before they can be granted that request. It's not automatic. There are really strict criteria and doctors don't have to administer end of life injections or however it is they do it – I'm assuming it's injections. They don't have to perform the act that would take a life. They can say, No, I don't believe in it. I would rather save a life than end it. Not for me. I'll give you the name of a doctor who does believe in it."
So how is the State dictating? It's not telling doctors they must kill their patients. It's not telling people they must die if they have a long-term degenerative disease. As far as I'm aware, it's about a person's choice. And on the ethics side of thing, why is it ethical to keep a person alive when they don't want to be, but they don't fit that six-month criteria? Alex Penk is perfectly within his rights to choose not to take an early exit. Doctors are perfectly within their rights to say they'd rather save lives than end them. And I want to continue to have the right and have it improved to be able to call it quits when there is no longer any value for me to be here.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
Agree wholeheartedly. For me personally, it's about quality rather than quantity of life, and it is up to me to define quality, which is a very subjective measure but all the more in accordance with this matter being one of personal choice.
It has always been possible for people to effect their own death, 'commit suicide' it was called. This is offering people a less risky and/or socially disruptive method - and entirely voluntary for all concerned.
The bill is not working as intended. The Ministry of Health cannot even report the number of people that died from euthanasia correctly.
Specifically, the Ministry has recently updated two quarterly reports from 2024. In the original report for 1 July 2024 to 30 September 2024 the number of deaths was put at 73. Then, remarkably the same report was updated to say the number was actually 129. That’s an increase of 77%, or 56 people!
The original quarterly report for April to June 2024 originally stated there were 126 deaths, but has then been changed to say ‘only’ 108. Sixteen supposedly dead, were clearly not.
Up until very recently, the three person body known as the End of Life Review Committee, has never been fully constituted. This committee is meant to comprise of a medical professional (doctor), a health professional (e.g. a nurse), and an ethicist. Since euthanasia became legal the review committee has struggled to have either an ethicist or a doctor on the panel.
Some may say that this is not a big deal. I say it is. This committee exists to make sure that euthanasia is operating within agreed legal and medical frameworks, and is why the three roles are quite specific and necessary. Proponents of the law always make a big deal about the supposed robust processes and systems in place. If they cannot even find three people to fill the oversight committee, how can we have confidence that the systems are working appropriately.
It also must be asked, why the government has struggled to find people for these three roles? The answer of course is simple - so few doctors, nurses, and ethicists want anything to do with euthanasia, let alone be on a panel to review the deaths that have occurred.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.