Plainly the upcoming End of Life Choice referendum concerns me, others like me, and all those involved in my care.

I've just put the phone down after my phone consultation. My results are excellent.

No new disease showing up in my body and the tumour much the same as it was on the last scan.

I'm back ‘under observation' (meaning a doctor check-in every six weeks and CT scan every three months).

It's an upward-swing of the pendulum, another reprieve - delivered with care, grace, attentiveness, in the best possible way.

This was my post-chemotherapy review and I was nervous, though I'm mostly beyond this now.

It's two years since the cancer - an aggressive soft-tissue sarcoma - spread to the bone in my hip and I was told there was no cure: my treatment from now on would be palliative.

This was a shock.

I'd already been through the treatment mill - radiotherapy every day for close on six weeks.

And here I was almost over the five-year mark, sitting in a golf cart being ferried to the A&E department of my local hospital.

Two years on, and inconceivable as it seems to me, I'm facing the end of my life.

Something personal

We're coming up to a referendum on this very topic.

I'd like to add something personal to the conversation.

Personally, I've noticed the reticence most people have around the subject of unexpected or early death, as if it's either too delicate to speak about or not worthy of attention.

It seems to me we have a natural barrier to facing the end of life.

It poses us with an immense challenge, a distinct loss of control.

Action being easier than inaction, my first instinct was to fight. I was frightened, I was angry, I was incredulous. How could this be happening to me?

My next instinct was to draw a deep breath, pull myself up tall, and face things square on.

A few years ago, my young daughter took me along to hear Joy Cowley speak.

Her message was startling: ‘Face your fears in life!'

Her talk had a powerful impact on me: I'm indebted to her.

My initial prognosis was 12 months.

It wasn't long before my oncologist was ‘keeping me alive till Christmas'.

Since then my family and I have lived through two Christmases.

Clearly, in my case at least, there's deep uncertainty here. The defining clause in the Act relies on this. I'll be able to ask for an assisted death. Continue reading

She said she was motivated to write The Final Choice after she realised she would soon have to vote in the referendum, but she did not know much about the issue.

The New Zealand Parliament has passed legislation that would legalise assisted dying and euthanasia.

But the law will come into force only if more than 50 per cent of voters vote 'yes' in the referendum that is to take place at the same time as the general election.

Trayes thinks that while surveys show 58% to 74% favour the change, the same proportion does not know much about it.

She thought it was hard to find useful information that would let people make a good choice.

Trayes said she tried to as objective as possible.

She wanted to understand both sides of the debate, and to allow each side to have the opportunity to express their view.

Both sides of the argument wanted to relieve suffering. But the question is: "Is this an appropriate method"?

Some things that surprised her

Religion did not have such a significant influence as she thought. The arguments made by both sides were more often based on societal issues.

She had assumed that the relief of extreme pain was the motivation for those in favour of assisted dying and euthanasia.

But she found out that in the overseas jurisdictions where assisted dying and euthanasia is legal one of the top reasons was that their life was not enjoyable anymore.

In Oregon, in 2019 research showed 90% said their motivation was that their life was no longer enjoyable, 59% said they were worried about being a burden to others, and 33% were" in pain or afraid of the pain."

• Listen to the interview
• Buy The Final Choice

Source

• rnz.co.nz
• wheelers.co.nz
• newstalkzb.co.nz
• adlibris.com
• Image:newstalkzb.co.nz

The decision was made a conscience vote, meaning MPs voted individually, rather than along party lines.

So how did your MP vote on the legislation? Read more

With the acceptance of the amendment requiring a referendum, the Bill is likely to pass the third reading in November.

However, it will only become law if it is approved in a binding referendum to be held in conjunction with the 2020 general election.

Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ is confident that this will happen.

"It is one thing to say yes to a nice-sounding phrase around having ‘choice'", he says.

"But when voters examine the pitfalls and dangers of the bill that may be passed next month, they will quickly realise that assisted suicide is not a simple yes-no answer."

McCoskrie points to a survey in April that showed that most New Zealanders balk in their support of assisted dying when questioned about specific aspects of euthanasia.

The survey, commissioned by Euthanasia-Free NZ and conducted by Curia Market Research, comes ahead of the bill's second reading in Parliament on May 22.

The poll suggested the gap in public opinion between those who support and oppose was narrowing.

In a Newsroom article Sam Sachdeva says for the Bill sponsor David Seymour, the prime minister Jacinda Ardern and some other euthanasia supporters, a referendum is an undesirable but necessary evil to get the legislation across the line.

Proponents of the bill point to healthy levels of public support for reform, with upwards of 70 per cent in favour of legalising some form of assisting dying in most polls.

"That may explain why Seymour sees a referendum as an acceptable compromise," says Sachdeva.

"But recent trends for the other referendum topic which the End of Life Choice Bill will likely feature alongside next year would caution against any complacency."

Sachdeva suspects referendum on euthanasia and the one on cannabis, and the sentiment they stir up are almost certain to bleed into each other too."

Source:

• scoop.co.nz
• newsroom.co.nz
• Image: france24.com

"I used to be a supporter of [euthanasia] legislation. But now, with twelve years of experience, I take a different view," says Dr Theo A. Boer.

From 2005 to 2014 Boer was an ethicist on a regional Euthanasia Review Committee in the Netherlands, examining 4,000 euthanasia cases.

He is presently visiting New Zealand.

In 2007 Boer said the Dutch euthanasia law was working well. He wrote, ‘there doesn't need to be a slippery slope when it comes to euthanasia. A good euthanasia law, in combination with the euthanasia review procedure, provides the warrants for a stable and relatively low number of euthanasia."

However, in 2014, he wrote an article for the Daily Mail stating, "But we were wrong - terribly wrong, in fact. In hindsight, the stabilization in the numbers was just a temporary pause."

Boris Jancic, in his column in the New Zealand Herald, quotes Boer as saying: "The availability of euthanasia has very much changed the way we think about dying. Dying is more and more kind of a project. It is something that people are managing.

The initial reasons for euthanasia in the Netherlands was pain … People were beyond hope because there was no pain relief. But what I have seen is that the primary reason is not pain."

According to Boer's research, terminal cancer was the reason behind 95 per cent of cases of euthanasia in 2002, but only 68 per cent by 2016.

He says since the Netherlands legalised assisted dying in 2002 there's been a consistent increase in uptake and a shift from seeing euthanasia as a last resort to a "good death".

Source

• Supplied
• alexschadenberg.blogspot.com
• nzherald.co.nz
• Image: tvnz.co.nz

Paula Tesoriero thinks it continues to pose risks for New Zealanders, particularly the disabled.

She is concerned that disabled Kiwis may see themselves as a burden.

"If New Zealanders want this kind of scheme" the process should be begun again and the legislation should be co-created "with the right people around the table."

The sponsor of the Bill, David Seymour, says Tesoriero is disingenuous and that there is no danger of pressure being put on disabled people to end their lives.

Amendments approved

On Wednesday evening a number of proposed amendments passed 69 votes to 51.

Among other changes, they add clauses:

• Prohibiting a health practitioner from initiating any discussion about assisted dying.
• Giving employment protections for any doctor, nurse, or psychiatrist who objects to taking part in the process on any ground.
• Explicitly stating that if any pressure is suspected on a person applying for assisted dying, doctors and nurses must stop the process.

The issues are competency and coercion

Tesoriero expressed her concerns on Wednesday before the debate took place in the House.

She told TVNZ1's Breakfast she wasn't satisfied with the proposed amendments to the bill, adding there was "no bright-line test between disability and terminal illness".

"The safeguards in the bill, although there have been some attempts to improve them, still don't go far enough in my view, particularly around the assessment of who is competent and secondly around coercion."

Tesoriero said there was "a whole range of improvements" that could be made.

She would like to see doctors talk to people who aren't in the family and aren't in the dying person's will to better safeguard the process.

"Also what's really important is that the bill doesn't provide any mechanism to detect more subtle forms of coercion like advertising."

Source

• tvnz.co.nz
• newshub.co.nz
• Image: tvnz.co.nz

It had passed its second reading, in June, 70 votes to 50.

This stage will see politicians debating and individually voting on possibly more than a hundred changes to the bill, in a process that may take more than four months.

The bill's sponsor, Act Party leader David Seymour, had at least 30 changes ready to go while one of its most vociferous opponents, National MP Maggie Barry, has more than 100 amendments.

Eligibility

The most important vote on Wednesday was on an amendment made by David Seymour.

This amendment, which Seymour himself disagrees with, is key to keeping the support of the Green Party and several other MPs.

It narrowed the eligibility of someone seeking euthanasia only to individuals with a terminal illness that will likely kill them within six months.

Widespread concern had been expressed that the "irremediable" clause could have wide-reaching implications for groups such as the disabled community.

That passed with a conscience vote by MPs 74 votes to 44.

With this amendment agreed to, the Green Party will now support the Bill.

Seymour's full suite of amendments - not all of which have passed yet - will set out many other elements of the bill, including the need for two doctors independent of each other to confirm the terminal diagnosis.

A public referendum

Another important amendment has been tabled by New Zealand First.

It proposes that a public referendum be added to the legislation.

New Zealand First will vote "No" to the Bill if this requirement isn't accepted by the House.

None of the National MPs speaking to the media on Wednesday would put their backing behind the version of the referendum NZ First had put forward.

Without New Zealand First's nine votes, Seymour cannot afford to lose even a single net "Yes" from the second reading.

Source

• nzherald.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• newshub.co.nz
• legislation.govt.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• rnz.co.nz
• Image: familyfirst.org.nz

By voting in favour of this bill at the second reading, Parliament has abandoned its commitment to upholding a culture of life and its sacred duty to legislate for the protection of the lives of every human being from conception to natural death and not to preside over our destruction.

It is not the role of Parliament to decide who shall live and who can be killed.

Members who voted in favour of this bill at the second reading, have also put the democratic process of law in New Zealand in serious jeopardy.

In ignoring the overwhelming rejection of euthanasia, and this bill, by 91.8 per cent of the 39,159 written submissions and the 85 per cent rejection of the 3,600 oral submissions heard by the Select Committee, those politicians who voted in favour of the second reading have thumbed their noses at the very process they take an oath to uphold.

In reporting the bill back to Parliament, the Committee chairman advised that the Committee was unable to agree that the Bill should be passed, yet a majority of our elected representatives thought their conscience took priority over due parliamentary process!

The bill is also strongly opposed by the New Zealand Medical Association, by disability groups and Aged Concern.

I am disappointed that Parliament has embraced a culture of death by voting in favour of the EOLCB, which if passed at its third reading will allow doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide.

This is a violation of the sanctity of life ethic and of the prohibition of the taking of the life of an innocent human being, the foundation of the law and of medicine, which we change at our peril.

That Parliament has decided at this stage that some lives not worthy of life is a tragic moment and a day of shame in the history of our Parliament and country.

It has placed in jeopardy the lives of some of our most vulnerable, the aged, the disabled and the seriously ill.

Right to Life now earnestly requests that Parliament defeats this bill at its third reading and ensures that every New Zealander has access to death with dignity with our world-class palliative care by ensuring that it is fully funded and accessible.

Parliament should also commit itself to implement the government's Suicide Prevention Strategy which aims to reduce our appalling suicide rate.

• Ken Orr is the Spokesman for Right to Life.

It was a slimmer margin than the one achieved at first reading in December 2017. The vote then was 76 to 44.

While the vote appears decisive with a majority of 20, it will require a shift of only 11 votes to block it at the third and final reading.

New Zealand First has supported the Bill at first and second reading but only on the expectation that an amendment will be passed putting to a referendum at the next stage of debate.

If the referendum amendment is not agreed, senior New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin has said it would be unlikely the party would support the bill at its final reading.

Just 20 MPs had the opportunity to debate the bill. Many of them used their time in the debate to express disappointment at the Justice Select Committee process.

The Committee didn't manage to make any major change such as narrowing the bill to apply to only the terminally ill.

As it stands, the bill would allow for people in unbearable suffering, with an incurable, grievous condition or who have a terminal illness likely to end their life within six months, to ask a doctor to help end their life.

That was a reason many speakers gave for voting in favour of the second reading.

They expressed the hope that this next stage - the Committee of the whole House - would allow for changes to be made.

This has prompted a number of commentators to say that the real fight is yet to come.

Almost everyone involved agrees that it will need serious amending - including Seymour himself.

Maggie Barry, who has strongly opposed assisted dying, called the Bill the most poorly drafted she'd ever seen.

The Bill will now move to the House where more major amendments will be proposed and debated before it faces its third and final reading.

Barry is leading a group of MPs opposing the Bill, with more than a hundred proposed amendments.

If the bill is passed with New Zealand First's support, then a referendum must take place.

Click here to see party and individual votes.

Source

• stuff.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• newshub.co.nz
• rnz.co.nz
• newstalkzb.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• Image: wikipedia.org

The letter has been signed by 1061 doctors, of the 17,000 registered doctors in New Zealand.

Medical Association chair Dr Kate Baddock agreeds with the letter and the majority of their more than 5000 members oppose euthanasia.

MP David Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill is expected to have its second reading in parliament on Wednesday.

He says the Bill will likely pass on Wednesday and the contents of the letter are not new.

However, MPs opposing the bill are planning to put up more than 100 amendments that could push its possible passage well into next year.

The letter's signatories endorse the views of the World Medical Association and New Zealand Medical Association, that euthanasia is unethical, even if made legal.

The doctors said they were "committed to the concept of death with dignity and comfort", including effective pain relief and excellence in palliative care. And they uphold the right of patients to decline treatment.

Palliative care specialist, Dr Sinead Donnelly, who organised the letter, said the bill changes the relationship between a doctor and their patient.

Donnelly said she had a message for MPs.

"As doctors, we don't want to be part of it, you're going to, in our view, destroy the profession of medicine by drawing us in to ending the life of our patients."

Baddock said their stance was in line with the international response.

"In the World Medical Association, some 119 countries belong and over 90 per cent of them are completely against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide," she said.

If New Zealand was to adopt assisted dying, Baddock said the Medical Association will be advocating for a policy like Switzerland, where doctors are not involved in the process at all.

Source

• rnz.co.nz
• rnz.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• scoop.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• Image: quora.com

She was permanently physically disabled in a car crash caused by her mother.

It was a moment in time that changed both their lives forever and caused Claire to try to end hers on many occasions.

But after decades of difficulties and depression, shes made a major u-turn on her wish to live and is now determined to save other peoples lives.

TVNZ's Sunday Programme on May 26 told Claire's story and revealed why she has changed her mind about the End of Life Choice Bill.

Chris Fords, a Dunedin-based writer and researcher who focuses on disability, economic and social issues and identifies as a disabled person, has also changed his mind about the Bill.

"I know that this will put me in the same column as Christian conservatives who also oppose the legislation for moral reasons," he says in a story posted in Newsroom.

"Personally, this makes me feel very uneasy given that I hold otherwise progressively social liberal views on issues such as abortion and reproductive rights, LGBTI rights, women's issues and indigenous issues, etc."

He then goes on to outline from a socialist, progressive and disability rights perspective why he has swung his support to the anti-euthanasia camp.

For Ford, the key arguments for opposing euthanasia is that people who are already marginalised or devalued (such as older and disabled people) would be at high risk from euthanasia.

He acknowledges that when the legislation returns that Seymour is preparing to remove the ‘irremediable conditions' clause.

However, he thinks a diagnosis of a terminal illness with a prognosis of less than six months is not a definitive time statement.

"A diagnostic timeframe is simply a clinician's best-informed opinion about when a person may die - nothing else.

He points out that some people can live for many years with a terminal illness or condition and still enjoy a remarkable quality of life if they have the right support and treatment.

Source

• newsroom.co.nz
• tvnz.co.nz
• Image: screenshot tvnz.co.nz

The survey results are based on 1048 responses.

When questioned about specific aspects of euthanasia the poll found:

• 73 per cent were opposed to allowing anyone over 18 to request a lethal injection without telling family members about it
• 57 per cent agreed that doctors be allowed to administer lethal doses of drugs to patients. 43 per cent disagreed, were unsure of, or refused to answer
• 27 per cent agreed that a doctor should be allowed to administer lethal drugs to a patient who was not in pain
• 35 per cent supported euthanasia because a terminally ill person was depressed or thought life was meaningless
• 25% supported New Zealand having a law that would allow terminally ill persons to choose euthanasia because they feel they are a burden

Act Party MP David Seymour who sponsors the End of Life Choice Bill said the poll asked deliberately misleading questions that are not contained in the proposed legislation.

Curia Market Research Ltd (CMR) has been operating since 2004.

CMR website says its principal, David Farrar, has almost twenty years of experience in all aspects of polling from question design to results analysis.

"He has provided polling services to three New Zealand Prime Ministers and four Opposition Leaders."

The second reading of the End of Life Choice Bill will be on May 22.

Labour and National will allow their MPs to have a "conscience vote" on the issue for the Bill's second reading.

The Greens have said they would support the Bill in its second reading, but are likely to vote the Bill down unless it applies only to those with terminal illnesses.

Winston Peters has made a referendum a condition of his party's continued support for the passage of the Bill.

Seymour has suggested amending the Bill to include that requirement (as well as narrowing its eligibility criteria to apply only to the terminally ill to satisfy the Greens and other MPs who want narrower access).

Source

• scoop.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• thespinoff.co.nz
• euthanasiadebate.org.nz
• Image: cbc.ca

Mary English has worked as a general practitioner for 28 years.

She has a practice in the inner Wellington suburb of Kelburn.

They are both Catholics, but Bill English said euthanasia should not be seen as a battleground between believers and atheists, "just an issue of different belief systems".

He said the argument was more about advocating for the collective good than a specific religious view.

Sir Bill English'submission

Bill English said the legislation was flawed in principle and beyond salvaging in practice.

"What starts out as permitted will become desirable, and then for some will become an unconsented necessity - that's the slippery slope and there's actually no way around it."

He said:

• The criteria for who would be eligible to request assisted dying was too broad
• The test for whether a person had consented to die was too low
• There were too few consequences in place for anyone who broke the safeguards of the legislation.

The current bill was being supported by a small group of predominantly highly-educated pakeha, who placed high importance on personal autonomy Bill English said.

Dr Mary English's Submission

She said she was opposed to "state-sanctioned killing".

There was nothing in Seymour's bill sufficient to contain the incredible power over life which doctors would have.

"If you ask [doctors], ‘What is your bottom line?'...most importantly, we don't want to be responsible for the death of a patient that didn't need to happen."

Mary English expressed concern that elderly people would feel under pressure to kill themselves as if they were a burden, with not all families willing to provide necessary support and in some cases taking advantage of them.

Both Bill and Mary English drew a comparison with youth suicide.

"If assisted suicide is a triumph for autonomy and choice, how can youth suicide be a tragedy?" Mary English said.

Listen to submission

Source

• news.com.au
• pro.newsroom.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• Image: screenshot

Bishop Charles Drennan, Dr Caroline Newson, who works in acute psychiatry medicine, Dr John Kleinsman and researcher Dr Sue Buckley from the Nathaniel Institute made submissions.

Drennan talked about the selfless staff working in rest homes, hospices and hospitals who accompany the dying and their families and whanau daily.

He noted the Catholic Church's long involvement in palliative care.

A group of catholic sisters, the Little Company of Mary, founded Mary Potter Hospice, the first hospice in New Zealand.

He took issue with the principle of individual choice as it is presented the End of Life Life Choice Bill.

He said, "choice is good but not always good. What is important is to choose what is right or dignified or best."

New Zealand prides itself on being a progressive nation, the bishop said.

But the Bill, if passed, would usher in a regressive and unnecessary backward move.

Assisted suicide of the elderly or sick, like the tragedy of youth suicide, would be a cause of great whakama or shame for Aotearoa.

It is progressive to challenge ageist attitudes and eliminate the sense that being sick or old or dependent equates to being a burden, Drennan said.

Newson argued that making it legal for those with a mental illness to have a doctor assist their suicide would contradict the Government's pledge to better support mental health.

She asserted that euthanasia and assisted suicide had no place in healthcare and that doctors did not want it.

Their training prepares them to provide care and give hope to their patients.

So they should not have the burden of being the ones to end people's lives imposed on them.

"This Bill places a heavy burden upon the medical profession to aid in the suicide of, or actively kill, a person who seeks such an end to their life and is deemed to satisfy the Bill's eligibility criteria," she said.

Kleinsman spoke to the Bill's problems.

• Its imprecise terminology
• Its vague and subjective language around eligibility
• Its failure to consider broader social implications
• The ethical contradiction of involving doctors in ending the lives of their patients
• The impossibility of ensuring people were not coerced.
• The absence of effective safeguards within the proposed legislation.

Kleinsman cited the growing rates of elder abuse as well as growing social isolation amongst older people along with an increased sense amongst our elders that they are a burden.

"There has never been a more dangerous time to implement an assisted death regime in New Zealand."

He cited international examples showing a year-on-year increase in numbers of euthanasia.

The practice of euthanasia, Kleinsman said, is contributing to a "new norm around dying" in places such as Belgium and the Netherlands.

These countries have regimes similar to to the proposed legislation.

The NZCBC's social justice agency, Caritas, also presented to the Select Committee.

Their media statement on their submission can be found by visiting their website

Others presenting to the Select Committee included Not Dead Yet Aotearoa, Care Alliance, Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand, Grace Presbyterian Church of NZ, Palliative Care Nurses, Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine and Hospice New Zealand.

Source

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

"The committee could not have done the submitters justice if we had refused to travel or hear everyone who asked to be heard. It was therefore essential we had the six-month extension to allow us to give due consideration to the enormous task ahead of us." Read more

"It is readily apparent that the scope is unclear and misunderstood," said Paula Tesoriero.

Paula Tesoriero published a scathing assessment of David Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill earlier this year and did not ease off during the first public submissions in a parliamentary select committee on Monday.

She said the Bill's drafting could lead to serious unintended consequences that would fall disproportionately on disabled Kiwis.

Tesoriero said it ran the risk of unjustly including people with disabilities who don't need to end their lives.

The Commissioner told the committee she was especially concerned by the potential inclusion of non-terminal conditions by reference to a "grievous or irremediable terminal condition."

It was unclear whether illnesses like muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis or a declining medical condition were included or excluded from the legislation.

National MP Chris Bishop asked if Tesoriero believed assisted dying would always discriminate against disabled people or whether her objection was limited to this particular bill.

Tesoriero replied that in "certain circumstances" a framework might exist for terminal illness with adequate safeguards, but moving beyond the terminally ill was more fraught.

"We have not found a jurisdiction or a framework that would suggest the safeguards could be safe," she said.

The bill's sponsor ACT leader David Seymour said he was deeply disappointed that Ms Tesoriero was "spreading misinformation" as intellectually disabled people did not qualify under the bill.

"It's very ironic that the Disabilities Commissioner of all people would be saying that a person who's perfectly capable of making a decision ... should have fewer rights and choices than other people."

Source

• newsroom.co.nz
• radionz.co.nz
• Image: newsroom.co.nz

O'Brien said the bill was philosophically and practically flawed and would compromise medical professionals' ethics. "If we say death is a right for somehow can we say death isn't a right for others?"

He feared the bill if passed into law, would be slowly extended through the courts to allow "assisted suicide on demand". Read more

The Bishops say that while some popular polls claim that New Zealanders are in support of the Bill, many commentators note that in fact what they are expressing is a view on a misunderstood notion of "choice."

"We are also aware of research which shows that support for assisted suicide significantly drops off when some of the practical implications are included in polling."

In the conclusion to their submission, they say that after consultation and dialogue they think the Bill would be unethical, dangerous and unprogressive.

They note that their extensive network includes:

• Young people in the large network of Catholic schools
• The elderly
• Tangata Whenua on katorika marae
• New migrants' groups
• People serving in rest-homes, hospitals and hospices
• Friends in other faith communities

"Our whanau, our Pasifika, our Asian peoples and our Pakeha all know we can do better," they say.

The Bishops say the End of Life Choice Bill is a giant step backwards.

"As the nation delights in Prime Minister Jacinda and Clarke's news of a baby, we urge that the nation move forward, showing the same delight and respect for our elders and all other vulnerable lives too.

"We call on the New Zealand Parliament to protect the vulnerable, the mentally unwell, the disabled and the elderly.

"We call for a strengthening of support for palliative care facilities and hospices.

"The first Labour Government of this nation saw the need for "care from the cradle to the grave". In a contemporary manner, may compassion, not fear and threat, continue to stand at the heart of our nation."

Source

• catholic.org.nz
• Image: familyfirst.org.nz

Roger Foley has cerebellar ataxia, a terminal and incurable severe brain disorder that limits movement and leaves him unable to perform basic tasks independently.

He wants to be able to live at home but has instead been offered only two options: a forced discharge from hospital or medically assisted death.

Because of this, Foley is suing the hospital, several health agencies and the attorneys general of Ontario and Canada.

"The Canadians haven't had their law for very long and yet already we can see that the idea of choice is a myth - real choices are not available for patients to be assisted to live," says Thirkell.

"This is happening in the same country that David Seymour calls "advanced", with a law that he points to as an example to be followed."

"Mr Foley's case highlights the substantial dangers that people with disability and serious chronic and life-limiting medical conditions will face if Mr Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill is passed."

Under the End of Life Choice Bill, it is not necessary for patients to have their basic needs met before seeking euthanasia, and there is no obligation to ensure real alternatives are explored; the patient must simply be "aware" of them.

"The Bill targets people who may have complex health needs and who rely on our health system for care. We should be providing the highest standard of care and support to live, which meets those needs.

"True patient-centred care enables the best living possible, personalised to the patient where appropriate medical expertise and care is properly provided.

That's what palliative and hospice care does and that's why palliative and hospice care should be invested in."

Mr Foley wants to live and the irony is that it is the availability of legal euthanasia and assisted suicide that marks for him the end of any choice for life."

Source

• carealliance.org.nz
• ctvnews.ca
• Image: professorramos.blog