His comments come as the Ministry of Health is conducting a mandated review of the End of Life Choice Act within three years of its implementation to assess its effectiveness and determine whether amendments are needed.

The current review will be finished by November.

Kleinsman was speaking on 1 News.

Changes needed

Kleinsman say the current legislation needs changing as it lacks:

• a formal assessment for coercion
• a requirement for an independent witness during the assessment phase
• adequate screening for depression and other mental health issues
• no cooling-off period after a request is made

He recognises that the case for assisted death is motivated by a desire to show mercy to those suffering.

While individual cases may appear justified without immediate harm, concerns arise about the cumulative impact of cases and shifting public perceptions, he says.

Kleinsman warns that the growth of habits and attitudes of mind gradually reshapes public perceptions of what is happening and what assisted dying means.

He points to several international examples that cause concern.

Countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain now permit assisted dying for mental illness, with several other countries also allowing it for minors, infants and individuals with dementia.

Then, in a related development, a 2023 Canadian poll revealed that 28 percent of respondents supported assisted dying for individuals experiencing homelessness, while 27 percent were in favour of those living in poverty.

The findings have fuelled further controversy as stories emerge in Canada of patients opting for assisted dying due to inadequate social support and healthcare rather than an autonomous choice driven by their medical condition.

"This shows us a glimpse into our own future if we loosen our eligibility criteria - the price could involve "severe unintended consequences" Kleinsman said.

He adds that we must continue to protect the integrity of palliative care and have AD-free spaces. Many people want this, and it's essential for upholding real choice.

He says that to replace the requirement for a terminally ill patient's life expectancy to be under six months with a clause like "grievous and irremediable suffering" would be wrong.

Forbidding doctors to raise the option of assisted dying with a patient must not change, he says.

Pro assisted dying changes

Social Justice NZ CEO Jackie Foster says she voted "no" at the referendum but has changed her mind.

Foster said, after losing her mother to cancer and having a close friend aged 51 die from a degenerative disease, it is often difficult for doctors to determine if people will die within six months, so she wants the removal of that time restriction.

She wants two changes to the legislation -

• the removal of the words "within 6 months" from section 5(1)(c)
• inserting a new sub-section 5(1)(g) into the Act that says "suffers from a degenerative disease that will ultimately end their life"

Foster believes that the first three years of this legislation have brought the country closer on the issue.

In 2020, 65 percent of voters said "yes" to the legislation but she believes that number would be higher today.

Source

• 1News

Published in Nature Climate Change, the University of Western Australia's Professor Malcolm McCulloch's groundbreaking research utilised a unique method to analyse sea sponge skeletons, tracing back 300 years of ocean temperature records.

His approach has unveiled the fact that the pace of global warming is far more advanced than previously understood.

Researchers examined the chemical composition of long-lived sea sponges from the Eastern Caribbean, offering a new perspective on the historical progression of ocean warming.

This method underscores the limitations of traditional ocean warming measurements which rely primarily on sea-surface temperature records dating back only 180 years, potentially underestimating the extent of human-induced climate change.

Reacting to the study's findings, Dr John Kleinsman, Director of the Nathaniel Centre for Bioethics, emphasised the urgent need for immediate action to reduce carbon emissions.

"It is unfortunately the case that we are not making as much progress in reducing emissions as we need to avoid even greater catastrophes than we are already experiencing" Kleinsman told CathNews.

He highlighted the necessity of overcoming apathy and denial, advocating for "long-term transformational changes that are both personal and collective."

This call to action echoes the sentiments from the New Zealand Catholic bishops' document Te Kahu o te Ora, urging a comprehensive response to the climate crisis.

Despite some climate scientists expressing scepticism about the study's isolated approach, Kleinsman argues that the research further underscores the critical need to reduce global carbon emissions.

This sentiment is a stark reminder of the ongoing challenges in mitigating climate change impacts and the collective effort required to address this global issue effectively.

The study

In the depths of the Caribbean Sea, ancient sponges with hard skeletons have been silently documenting ocean temperatures for centuries.

Researchers including McCulloch and teams from Indiana State University and the University of Puerto Rico, analysed these sponges which absorb strontium and calcium in temperature-dependent ratios.

Their study reconstructed 300 years of ocean temperatures, integrating these with land-based records to assess global warming.

These deep-sea sponges, unaffected by short-term temperature fluctuations and reflective of global averages, confirmed the accuracy of historical temperature trends including a notable drop after the 1815 volcanic eruption in Indonesia.

The study claims that the method addresses inconsistencies in 19th-century ship-based temperature recordings. It further suggests that significant global warming began around 1860, earlier than the "pre-industrial" period defined by the IPCC, challenging current benchmarks for measuring global heating rates.

Sources

• The Conversation
• Supplied
• The Guardian

According to Pope Francis, nations are using climate change responses merely as a ploy to distract attention, and it's time to get serious.

The comments come in a stern warning in Laudate Deum, issued by Pope Francis on Wednesday.

In the document, Francis urges global leaders to adopt concrete measures to combat climate change, cautioning that the Earth is rapidly approaching an irreversible "point of no return."

"The world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point," he writes in Laudate Deum, an Apostolic Exhortation to all people of good will.

New Zealand response

New Zealand theologian Dr John Kleinsman calls Laudate Deum "a real wake-up call".

Pope Francis is not mincing his words," he says.

"I think about my four mokopuna, all under 3 years of age, and I wonder what the world will be like for them within one generation.

"But I also know it is no longer enough to wonder.

"I need to act with an urgency underpinned by a well-developed sense of mysticism, transcendence,and love for the dignity of all God's creation," Kleinsman told CathNews.

"At Mass we often pray the Confiteor, the prayer where we confess not only ‘what I have done', but also ‘what I have failed to do'.

"And yet so easily we can be oblivious to our ‘sin', and, in the climate case, be dismissive of what is shaping up to be a massive global challenge," said Bishop Steve Lowe, President of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference.

Scientific evidence of Climate Change

Armed with robust scientific evidence, diplomatic acumen and theological insights, the Pope issued a compelling ethical mandate for the world to shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.

He called for the implementation of "efficient, obligatory and readily monitored" measures.

Vulnerable and impoverished - a disproportionate burden

Intensifying his previous warnings about the "irreversible" damage already inflicted on humanity and the planet, Francis expressed concern for the disproportionate burden borne by the world's impoverished and vulnerable populations.

Francis did not mince words when he singled out the United States for its outsized contribution to global emissions.

He noted that emissions per person in the US are double those of China and seven times higher than in economically disadvantaged nations.

Phase out fossil fuels - an unequivocal Yes

Francis was unequivocal on the contentious issue whether to phase out fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas which are primary drivers of climate change.

Francis says the transition needs to happen as fast as possible.

While acknowledging that individual and household actions make a difference, he said that a sweeping transformation in the "irresponsible lifestyle" associated with Western consumption patterns would yield significant long-term benefits.

The Pope's statement "Praise God" was released to coincide with the Feast of St Francis of Assisi, the Pope's environmentally-conscious namesake.

His remarks were part of a grim update to his seminal 2015 environmental encyclical Laudato si'.

The document aims to galvanise negotiators to agree on enforceable climate goals at the upcoming UN talks in Dubai.

Sources

• Associated Press
• Reuters
• Supplied

On 9 October, the Catholic Church in New Zealand marks "Support Life Sunday."

Dr John Kleinsman, Director of the Nathaniel Centre for bioethics, says it is important this year's campaign helps people hear those who have first-hand experience of mental illness.

"By making mental health a focus, we hope to break down further and lessen the stigma and discrimination which still surrounds mental illness and encourage more open and honest conversations," he says.

"Our schools and faith communities should be places of positive connection that lift people up, and we want to encourage people to reflect on the extent to which that is the case, as well as ways of becoming more supportive, uplifting and inclusive," Kleinsman says.

Overseas research shows stigma and fears surrounding mental illness mean sufferers are less likely to get the level of pastoral care provided for people with physical illnesses.

Catholic Bishop of Auckland Stephen Lowe says about 50 to 80 per cent of us will experience some form of mental distress, addiction challenges or both.

"Mental illness is a major issue which touches every family in some way," he says.

"And yet we don't talk about it nearly enough."

Lowe believes that as a Church, we are beginning to deal with and help people with mental health issues.

"We must also realise that we can and need to do better as faith communities in acknowledging mental illness and accompanying people with it.

"It's all about putting into action our core belief in the unconditional dignity of the human person," Lowe says.

This year's parish resources for Support Life Sunday include a social media campaign that highlights critical facts about mental illness and features quotes from people living with a mental illness or caring for someone who is mentally ill.

Parish and school resources for Support Life Sunday are now available.

• NZ Catholic Bishops Conference

Ministry of Health officials have highlighted "complex and sensitive elements" to the End of Life Choice Act and incoming assisted dying regime in a briefing paper to Health Minister Andrew Little.

The paper had been given to Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield in January, highlighting numerous unresolved questions and risks surrounding assisted dying services.

Among the "elements" include "uncertainty" over how many people will seek assisted death, terminally ill patients having to travel for services when the law comes into effect, competing pressures in the health system, and a possible need to rewrite parts of the law to resolve "legislative issues".

A statutory body, Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand (SCENZ), will include up of 11 medical experts who will manage the incoming assisted dying regime.

SCENZ will develop and oversee the standards for terminally ill patients should receive when they seek an assisted death.

Although the ministry says work to implement the new Act is "well underway", legal action over assisted dying services is considered "almost certain", due to the "strong views from sections of the public in favour and against assisted dying".

Dr John Kleinsman, the director of The Nathaniel Centre for Bioethics sees "a tragic irony in the fact that the Ministry of Health is able to put so many resources into enabling assisted death, and fully funding it in our country, when palliative care is not equitably available and also not fully funded.

"Advocates of the law change campaigned for change on the basis of choice, but for too many people they won't have the choice to access quality end of life care.

"I am not surprised by the prospect of further legal action. On the one hand, the Act is a terribly weak piece of legislation and I and many others, including lawyers and health practitioners, pointed out its many problems when the Bill was being considered.

"Too many MP's chose not to listen."

"Many proponents of the new law made it abundantly clear at the time it was passed that they thought it too restrictive! So they will be pushing hard for the law to be expanded. It is what has happened in every other jurisdiction and it will happen here."

Although Little has been approached by media about the Act in recent weeks. he has not been available.

The three "key risk factors" health officials identified in the briefing paper given to Little and Bloomfield are that: parts of the health sector are refusing to be involved in assisted dying; competing resources and pressures in the health system; and inadequate or insufficient engagement with "stakeholders" within the short timeframe to enact the law.

A "key question" is whether assisted dying should be fully government funded, or a "mixed-model". How a mixed-model could work was not detailed.

The legislation, which was a members' bill, may need to be rewritten "to ensure that the Act functions as intended", the paper said.

Source

• Stuff
• Supplied: The Nathanial Centre for Bioethics
• Image: Stuff

NZMA says it goes against medical values and is a "step too far" for many doctors.

NZMA chair Kate Baddock says while the association opposes the concept of euthanasia, it would work through the details of the Act before it came into effect next year.

She says the majority of medical professionals are against assisted dying.

"The main concerns for doctors is that it alters the fundamental relationship with the patient.

"There is going to be lots of implications which need to be worked through in some detail."

Coercion is an issue NZMZ says it must be "particularly careful about coercion. It could be so subtle no one picks it up."

Over 1800 doctors signed an open letter opposing assisted dying, entitled "Doctors say No", stating that assisted dying is unethical, regardless of whether it is legalised.

NZMA says the outcome has created a "complex" situation for medical professionals, particularly in rural areas with few GPs.

Doctors will work within the legal framework and just as they can with abortion, will be able to conscientiously object to taking part in ending lives.

Bioethics expert for the Catholic bishops, Dr John Kleinsman (pictured), says it puts vulnerable people and those who care for them on an unwelcome and dangerous path.

Kleinsman says the Act will bring a new and unwelcome dynamic into many people's lives.

"The very presence of the option of euthanasia will present as a burden and a pressure for many people and families," says Kleinsman.

Those who work with the dying will also be affected, he says.

These include doctors, nurses and other health carers, as well as chaplains, priests and lay ministers.

"We will be reflecting in the coming months with these groups as to how the law will impact the people they care for, as well as the carers themselves. Among the questions raised will be ones about the provision of the sacraments at the end of life, and the impact on funeral celebrations."

Friday's preliminary results saw 65.2 percent of votes cast in favour of the End of Life Choice Act, with 33.8 percent against.

Assisted dying is defined in the End of Life Choice Act as a doctor or nurse practitioner giving a person medication to relieve their suffering by bringing on death, or, the taking of medication by a person to relieve their suffering by bringing on death.

Those opting for an assisted death have to be 18 or older and suffering a terminal illness likely to end their life within six months.

The official results will be released this Friday.

Source

• NZ Catholic Bishops' Conference
• Stuff
• Image: Stuff

Firstly, though, I want to help you think about the concepts of justice, love, compassion, mercy and caring not merely on a spiritual or emotional or philosophical plane, but in a grounded way.

What do I mean by that?

Reality is defined by the challenges thrown up by our own weaknesses and the weaknesses of others, including the flawed institutions that we move in and out of and that sustain us.

Reality is also perhaps defined by our personal fears, both real and imagined, which limit our vision and can cause us to renege on our ‘yes' to what is good and life-giving.

Cultural and social context

A few facts about the social and cultural context in which we currently live that I believe are relevant to the introduction of assisted death in NZ?

• It's a context in which more than 10% and rising of our elders are experiencing abuse, including physical and emotional neglect, mostly from their own family members. This despite the tightest of laws against such abuse - WHY?
• It's a context in which more and more people, our elders in particular, are feeling socially isolated - WHY?
• It's a context in which depression is on the rise while our mental health services are under stress.
• It's a context in which people who are elderly, disabled and dependant are increasingly feeling like they are unwelcome and a burden.
• It's a context in which our health system is under increasing financial pressure to provide the care people need in a fair and equitable way.
• It's a context defined by severe institutionalised racism because Maori and Pacifica people die on average 7 years earlier than the rest of us and are 2.5 times more likely to die of diseases or illnesses than the rest of us.
• It's a context in which quality palliative care is not equally accessible?

We need to ask

What sort of social and cultural dynamic will be created were we to enact the End of Life Choice Act in this context?

In my view, there has never been a more dangerous time to legalise assisted death as at this particular time in our New Zealand history.

• What does it mean to care about others as much as ourselves in this context?
• Will providing assisted death address any of these issues in a caring ethical way?
• Will it resolve the inequity issues for Maori and Pacifica or worsen them?
• Will it address the social isolation of our elders or will it add to a sense of abandonment?
• Will it resolve the issues of increasing elder abuse or mask them? Will it address the inequitable access to palliative care or compound the current shortcomings?
• Will it really be "good care" to introduce assisted death in this context?

The questions I am posing are not questions about the rightness or wrongness per se of assisted suicide and/or euthanasia.

Actually, the question about the contextual implications - which is essentially a justice question - poses an even more important question for us as voters than whether assisted death is morally right or wrong.

This is precisely what the NZ Catholic Bishops are speaking about in their recently released Election Statement where they write:

"An informed decision requires consideration of the economic, social, whanaungatanga-kinship and cultural factors that limit many people's freedom to choose. Well-intended laws can have significant negative repercussions because of matters not anticipated by the law or because we don't all have access to the same choices.

"In coming to an informed decision, we advocate that voters embrace a perspective that gives priority to the impact a law change will have on others: ‘How will such a law affect us as a community? Who will be most negatively affected by the law in question? What are the consequences for those who are most vulnerable?"

Haves and have-nots

I am not saying that this law won't work for some, for example, the likes of Sir Michael Cullen, who has been a vocal, articulate and very public supporter of the Act.

Sir Michael is not one of the people I worry about in terms of being vulnerable when it comes to this law.

He already has choices, lots of choices.

He is articulate and well-connected.

He clearly has a good understanding of what is involved in the law. I do not have a fear that he will be coerced.

There are many others in the same position as him - able to talk about accessing the best of palliative care until they want to take control over the last few days.

For Sir Michael and others like him, legalising assisted death will provide another choice to add to the many choices for healthcare he already has.

Neither am I particularly concerned about myself being coerced into an assisted death.

I am also articulate and in a position where my saying ‘no' comes out of a place of having a family who will care for me whatever; comes from a place of knowing that I also have the choice to access quality palliative care so that I don't have to endure pain in the event I have a terminal illness.

Both Sir Michael and I, and may others are among those people capable of dying (or not dying) in a way that the Act allows … more than capable of making a truly free choice that is not the result of being bullied or coerced.

So, no, we don't have to deny that the law will work for some … but will it work for all and, in particular, will it work for the most vulnerable?

To draw again on the words of St Paul - it's about caring for others as much as, and not less than, we care for ourselves.

Taking on the same attitude of Christ Jesus is not to look at the Act from the perspective of the strong and articulate - those who have power and the luxury of choices - but rather to look at it from a perspective that considers the impact on the vulnerable - those who are disempowered and on the margins and who lack basic choices including access to good healthcare.

Not voting on law about assisted death

My experience is that most people know very little about the actual law.

My fear is that many, if not most, who decide to vote yes will decide to cast their vote based on their belief that some form of assisted death is a good idea - it's all about choice, right?

My fear is many, if not most without any reference to either the context in which we live or the robustness of the Act itself.

But we are not voting on the idea or concept of assisted death.

We are voting in this referendum on a particular law - a law that differs in critical ways from other laws overseas because it lacks many of the safeguards present in those laws; a law I regard as poorly drafted and weak.

1. There is no mandatory stand-down period in the End of Life Choice Act as there is in other countries. Under the proposed New Zealand law, a person could be dead less than 4 days after diagnosis. Hawaii has a 20-day stand down.
2. Unlike overseas laws, the EOLC Act does not require independent witnesses in the decision process.
3. A person does not need to be competent at the point when they make the final decision to die, unlike overseas laws.
4. The NZ Medical Association and the College of GPs have noted that there are no processes for effectively detecting pressure or coercion - a doctor simply has to ‘do their best'.
5. There is no screening for depression and no requirement to assess or provide mental health support?
6. There is no specific test for competency required. Rather, under the Act, the starting point for a doctor is that everyone is presumed to be competent unless it is obvious they are not - that is an extremely low threshold.
7. A person with a terminal illness does not need to be in pain to avail themselves of this law. It is not an act of last resort as many think. Up to 25,000 people will fall within the scope of this Act annually - in some ways, the structure of the Act makes it more akin to an ‘opt out' law rather than an ‘opt in'!
8. A person with a terminal illness does not need to try palliative care first!
9. The Act does not provide for a legal right to access palliative care - overseas, people are choosing assisted death because of a lack of other choices and it is well accepted that palliative care is not yet universally accessible in New Zealand.
10. It will not protect our elders who are being abused, mostly by their own families, from a premature death. Elder abuse affects 10% of our elders and continues to rise.
11. Neither of the two doctors need to know or have met a patient previously.
12. Neither of the doctors has to be a specialist in the area of your life-limiting illness as is the case overseas or be a specialist in palliative care.
13. All eligible persons, 18 years plus, can end their life without telling a family member or significant other.

Do we want a law at any cost?

It's important to know that, if it passes, the Law will be enacted in its current form - it cannot be changed.

My own conclusion, and that of almost 200 lawyers who have signed up to a website called Lawyers for Vulnerable New Zealanders, is that the End of Life Choice Act is, from a legal and public policy perspective, poorly drafted and lacking in key safeguards found in other laws overseas.

And some of these lawyers support the concept of assisted death!

Good public policy does not provide choice for some - the privileged - at the cost of caring for and protecting the most vulnerable.

In contrast, having the same attitude of Christ means taking a preferential option for the disempowered and vulnerable.

• It's not ‘compassion' to vote for a dangerous law.
• It's not mercy to vote for a dangerous law.
• It's not caring to vote for a dangerous law.
• It's not justice to vote for a dangerous law.

Even those who favour assisted death in some circumstances have many good reasons to vote no to this Act.

• Dr John Kleinsman is Director of The Nathaniel Centre and bioethics researcher.

But the conference specifically takes issue with the proposed End of Life Choice Act that is the subject of the impending referendum.

"I think it will change the way we are as a society ... how we think about old people, how we think about people with a disability."

Kleinsman says as Catholics they are not interested in "imposing" their beliefs on others, and they understand there is a case to be made for euthanasia.

However, he pointed to several issues within the Act of concern to the Catholic bishops, including the absence of a 'cooling-off period', which he believes makes it a "dangerous" piece of legislation.

He says that in a context where elder abuse is rife and "rising" despite a "very clear, robust law" prohibiting such abuse, the question:

"If we can't keep [them] safe now, how do we think we could keep them safe?" has to be asked if such a law was to pass.

The Christian church promotes the idea of autonomy and self-choice, but "we are not individuals in isolation and assisted dying is "not the only way to have a dignified death," he says.

Kleinsman says any euthanasia regime relies on the idea that some lives are worth living while others are not: "if anything, those most vulnerable deserve the greatest protection and care."

He says compassion and mercy are at the core of what it is to be Christian but says it is compassion towards those who will be sucked in unwittingly and experience wrongful death that forms the basis of his opposition to the Act.

Kleinman's statement forms part of a piece about the End of Life Choice Act on Stuff that canvases several opinions about the proposed legislation.

Source

• stuff.co.nz
• Image: assets.change.org

He is pleased that the Health Committee Report on the subject noted that complexity.

Kleinsman is the Director of The Nathaniel Centre, the Bioethics Research Agency for the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference.

The Nathaniel Centre is however, disappointed that Report does not give the assurances needed by the New Zealand Parliament to change the current law, " assurances that it won't pose substantial risks of coercion and abuse for those who are most vulnerable, the elderly, sick and disabled."

Kleinsman thinks anyone who reads the Report in full with an open mind will left be with huge concerns about the ability of any proposed law to supply adequate safeguards, "the sort of safeguards that would work in the real world."

Read full media release from the Nathaniel Centre in which the following points are made:

• The Health Committee report did not engage more with the solid evidence that was presented by many individuals and groups.
• In the absence of clear and irrefutable evidence that the most vulnerable would be adequately protected on an issue when the stakes are life and death and when a mistake is permanent, the precautionary principle must apply.
• "It is not up to opponents to prove beyond doubt that a law would be dangerous. It is up to proponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide to prove beyond doubt that it would be safe and this Report clearly does not deliver the required level of assurance.
• The Report identifies, in multiple places, that the desire to ‘not become reliant on others' and ‘not wishing to be a burden' is what motivates many to make euthanasia and assisted suicide available.
• "This reinforces the Nathaniel Centre's view that a law change would initiate a change in the way society would view the disabled and those who are dying, as well as the way we care for these people.
• Of even greater concern is that these persons would come to view their own place in society in a much more tentative way.

Source

• Supplied: Amanda Gregan Communications Advisor - NZ Catholic Bishops - Te Huinga o nga Pihopa Katorika o Aotearoa
• Image Change.org

The director of the New Zealand Catholic Bioethics Centre was commenting on a recent survey prepared for the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of New Zealand Inc by Horizon Research.

He said the recent Health Select Committee process is a much better indicator of people's real position because it involves a far more deliberative process than answering a single question telephone survey.

"Of the more than 21,000 people who wrote into the Health Select Committee to express their views on euthanasia and assisted suicide, more than 77% were opposed."

What did the poll reveal?

The Horizon Research poll found New Zealanders support medical practitioners assisting adults to die by majorities ranging from 66% to 75% in specified circumstances.

These include:

• Where such a request has come from a mentally competent patient, 18 years or over, who has end stage terminal disease (e.g. cancer) and irreversible unbearable suffering: 75% support
• Where such a request has come from a mentally competent patient, 18 years and over, who has irreversible unbearable suffering which may not cause death in the immediate future (e.g. motor neurone disease or some other degenerative or irreversible condition): 66% support

"The level of overall support shown in this poll falls within the broad range of many such polls conducted over the recent years," said Kleinsman.

Polls do not allow people to engage in the complexities

Kleinsman said said polls like this one do nothing to help people engage with the complexities of this issue and they are not at all productive in helping us to have a robust and better informed debate.

"The key issue for MP's and policy makers is less about the overall number of people who might support it and much more about whether such a regime can be implemented safely."

He said other research around the world has shown that the more people become aware of the complexity and risks associated with euthanasia, the less likely they are to support it.

There has never been a more dangerous time

"I maintain that there has never been a more dangerous time to introduce euthanasia or assisted suicide in New Zealand," said Kleinsman.

He pointed out that New Zealand is currently in the middle of Elder Abuse Awareness week.

"And this is a serious issue for us in New Zealand, one that is increasing in magnitude despite our best efforts to bring the numbers down."

"Add to that last week's OECD Report which shows that we have the highest rates of youth suicide in the OECD, more than twice that of the United States and almost twice that of Australia."

"This is not the time to send a contradictory message about the acceptability of suicide."

Source

• Supplied: Dr John Kleinsman
• Image: 3.bp.blogspot.com

For more information contact:
027 846 7489
jkleinsman@nathaniel.org.nz

In a blog post on the New Zealand Catholic bishops' website, Dr John Kleinsman wrote of how the synod's working document made little mention of this goodness.

He told a bishop at the synod on the family of this and also mentioned that there had been little mention of the topic in the synod interventions thus far.

This bishop subsequently made a "free intervention" to the synod attendees on this topic.

Dr Kleinsman, who is director of the Nathaniel Centre, the Catholic bioethics agency in New Zealand, then prepared a 300-word statement on the goodness of sexuality within marriage.

He presented this "modus" to the small group at the synod of which he is a member.

The text noted that in the giving of a married couple to each other in sexual loving, their love is nourished and "they become open to the possibility and miracle of new life".

Dr Kleinsman painted a picture of married loving and life-giving which transcends the relationship of the couple, with implications for the wider community and the world.

The final two paragraphs read: "At a time when the rich Christian vision of sex and sexuality has increasingly been replaced by a much narrower and impoverished understanding for many, Christian couples are called to witness more than ever to the beauty, joy and richness of human sexuality and the proper place of sexual loving in a committed, exclusive and permanent relationship."

"The sexual expression of love within marriage thus has the potential to establish itself as a special expression of Christian evangelisation."

In the blog post, Dr Kleinsman wrote that this statement was discussed in his small group.

It was accepted by the group and it was sent "forward for consideration by the writing party working on the final synod document".

He said the final document of the synod "will be all the poorer if it does not in some way affirm the goodness of sexuality that goes back to the Creation story in Genesis - and God saw it was good".

Dr Kleinsman is married with three adult children.

Sources

• NZCBC
• Image: Marist Messenger