"Every person matters… always! He mea nui te ora o nga tangata katoa... i nga wa katoa!" So reads New Zealand's Support Life Sunday tagline.

Inspired by the Vatican document Dignitas Infinita (On Human Dignity), the day reaffirms "the indispensable nature of the dignity of the human person in Christian anthropology" says Bishop Steve Lowe, president of the NZ Catholic Bishops Conference.

Dignitas Infinita reflects on what this means for individual human rights, how this impacts on our freedom in the moral and social spheres and ways it can be violated - through poverty, war, human trafficking, sexual abuse, abortion and euthanasia, Lowe says.

"We see Support Life Sunday as an opportunity to reaffirm a central and ubiquitous teaching of the Church and we hope it can be imprinted in our hearts and our minds as a daily [not just a Support Life Sunday] calling."

Dr John Kleinsman, director of the Nathaniel Centre, puts it this way - each person's value and worth "calls us to work tirelessly for justice for the weak and needy, the poor and afflicted, the vulnerable, the most insignificant, the marginalised and those downtrodden by the powerful".

Support Life ... how in a country that enables euthanasia?

New Zealand's End of Life (euthanasia) practice is the subject of an ongoing review, says Simon O'Connor MP.

The Minister in charge of the review is David Seymour.

Palliative care specialist Dr Jane Greville and ethics expert Dr Dana Wensley were inaugural members of the three-person review committee in 2021, just before the End of Life Choice Act came into force.

That committee assesses clinicians' reports on each assisted death and checks the law is being complied with. In cases where the law may have been breached, they must alert the End of Life Choice Registrar.

In a letter to Health Minister Shane Reti in March, Greville said that while the new law's introduction had been very smooth, the committee had been "constrained to the point of irrelevance".

Information lacking

There's a lack of information from the Ministry of Health, Greville and Wensley say.

Illustrating this, Wensley says she was denied access to requested data on assisted dying statistics.

Information for the reviewers about the patients was sparse or absent, she and Greville stated.

There are no records about the time patients had their lethal dose of medication, so reviewers could not consider cases where death might have taken longer than expected.

Nor did they have access to "basic material" including a patient's diagnosis, prognosis, assessment of capacity, or information which could help detect any suggestion of coercion.

Wensley and Greville say reports about patients and their doctors' recall of their cases were inconsistent. Greville wrote to Minister Shane Reti about this.

The Ministry's response was the same as when the pair also discovered incomplete and blank patient reports - they were told to "just assume nothing is wrong".

Greville and Wesley also discovered a case where a patient was approved for assisted dying, then died, while having no common language with the medical team and no interpreter provided.

When they raised their concerns about this, the Ministry of Health told them it was not within their remit. Nor did the Ministry acknowledge that the law might be faulty.

They have since had their contracts with the review committee cancelled.

Review underway

The Ministry says there are multiple safeguards built into the law. It will examine the review committee's scope in a review which is now under way.

Source

• NZ Herald
• Substack
• NZ Catholic Bishops Conference

The legal action claims the current exclusion of mental illness from the Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) programme is discriminatory under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The challenge comes amid ongoing debates and delays regarding the inclusion of mental illness as a qualifying condition for euthanasia.

Currently, Canada's MAID programme, legalised in 2016, permits euthanasia for individuals with physical illnesses, diseases or disabilities. However, those suffering solely from mental illness are not eligible, with the government planning to expand eligibility to include mental illness by March 17, 2027.

DWDC argues that the delay in expanding MAID to include mental illness violates Section 15 of the Charter, which mandates equal treatment under the law.

Helen Long, CEO of DWDC, highlighted the need to recognise the suffering of individuals with mental illness as equally devastating as physical suffering.

"All capable adults must be respected in their decisions and their choices honoured" said Long.

Contentious move

The expansion of euthanasia to include mental illness has been contentious.

Initially set for 2023, the expansion was postponed to 2024 and then to 2027 due to concerns that the healthcare system was unprepared for such a change.

Critics, including the Catholic Church in Canada, argue that expanding euthanasia to mental illness undermines human dignity and could lead to vulnerable individuals being pressured into ending their lives.

In May 2023, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed concerns that the expansion could predispose individuals with disabilities to suicide, citing instances where people felt pressured to choose euthanasia due to inadequate support and care.

"A patient diagnosed with a terminal condition or living in a situation of prolonged suffering must be offered whatever life-affirming relief and hope are available" the bishops stated.

The debate over euthanasia in Canada reflects broader ethical and legal challenges associated with end-of-life decisions.

Critics warn that economic incentives might drive government officials to promote euthanasia over providing comprehensive care.

Jimmy Akin, a senior apologist at Catholic Answers, cautioned against viewing euthanasia as a solution to mental health struggles, saying the need for compassionate care and support are paramount.

Source

• CNA

The stance is outlined in a new document published by the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV).

The text, titled "Small Lexicon on End of Life", indicates a slight departure from the Church's previous position.

However, it still reaffirms its opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

This new publication reflects the Vatican's evolving perspective on "aggressive treatment" in end-of-life care, particularly concerning the moral obligation to provide artificial nutrition and hydration.

The text acknowledges the complexity of determining when food and hydration, typically administered through medical technology, may no longer be considered obligatory.

In the 88-page document, the PAV reiterates the need to avoid "disproportionate interventions".

It highlights the importance of considering the overall well-being of the patient rather than focusing solely on sustaining biological functions.

According to an introduction by Italian Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia (pictured), president of the PAV, the volume has the aim of "reducing at least that component of disagreement that depends on an imprecise use of the notions implied in speech".

Moral duty to provide food and water

The document refers to past Vatican teachings including the 2020 letter Samaritanus Bonus and the 2024 declaration Dignitas Infinita. These teachings highlight the importance of avoiding aggressive treatments that may not truly help the patient.

The volume noted that the food and hydration prepared for vegetative patients are prepared in a laboratory and administered through technology, and thus do not amount to "simple care procedures."

The new lexicon also quotes Pope Francis, who in 2017 cautioned against insisting on treatments that merely sustain life without improving the overall health of the patient.

The PAV document clarifies that this nuanced position does not contradict the DDF's 2007 guidelines which emphasised the moral duty to provide food and water, even artificially, to patients in a vegetative state.

By allowing the space to be kept open for research on legislative mediation on the topic, Paglia in his introduction said "in this way, believers assume their responsibility to explain to everyone the universal (ethical) sense disclosed in the Christian faith".

Sources

Crux Now

Vatican News

CathNews New Zealand

In each State, however, there are conditions and restrictions. Advocates for euthanasia are currently calling for a review of some of these restrictions.

There has been, for instance, a call that advice on euthanasia and assisted suicide should be available via telehealth.

It should not be restricted to a personal face-to-face interview with a doctor.

It is argued that regional patients in particular are disadvantaged by the current restrictions. Although a recent Federal Court judgement (Justice Abraham: 30 November, 2023) rejected such a submission, it is inevitable that a variation of the original submission will be drafted and re-submitted in the near future.

There is also lobbying that doctors and health care professionals should be permitted to initiate discussions on euthanasia with patients rather than being restricted only to answering patient-initiated enquiries.

It is not surprising, then, that the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should have responded to these further attempts to make euthanasia more accessible, firstly by restating the Church's strong opposition to euthanasia and all forms of assisted suicide, and, then addressing some of the emerging issues that may arise specifically for Catholics in this end-of-life context.

The bishops' document: To Witness and Accompany with Christian Hope, (27 November, 2023), draws directly on a previous Vatican Letter, Samaritanus Bonus (14 July, 2020), which in turn draws on the Encyclical Letters of Pope John Paul II Veritatis Splendor (6 August, 1993), and Evangelium Vitae (25 March, 1995).

The Australian bishops also acknowledge, as a source, parallel documents drafted by the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference.

The Vatican Letter, Samaritanus Bonus, begins by rehearsing the traditional Catholic arguments against euthanasia and assisted suicide, in specific, the dignity and inviolability of human life and the adverse social effects of compromising this basic human value.

It then goes on to distinguish euthanasia from what is morally permissible, namely, foregoing needlessly aggressive and futile treatments in the terminal stages of life.

It insists, however, that basic nutrition, hydration, nursing and health care must always be maintained unless their administration, too, becomes unduly burdensome.

The Letter then adverts to the specific case of infants born disabled with severely limited life prospects.

Even though their situation is irredeemably parlous, this does not disqualify them from being treated under the same principles already outlined for terminally ill adults.

This very specific section of the Letter dealing with disabled infants with limited life prospects is particularly pertinent in view of the number of cases that have recently been brought to the attention of the Vatican.

There is a parallel section, too, insisting that the general principles apply also to those in a vegetative state and in a state of minimal consciousness, while recognizing, of course, that what constitutes overly aggressive or futile treatments in such situations is both specific to the patient and variable in view of their condition.

Samaritanus Bonus then openly canvasses the use of strong analgesics to combat pain.

Even though the use of such analgesics may result in terminal unconsciousness, it is permissible, provided that the intention is to alleviate pain and any resultant hastening of death, while possibly foreseen, is not intended.

Indeed, the administration of such analgesics, as with palliative care in general, may extend, rather than hasten, death.

The importance of family and hospice support, the rights of health care workers and the respect that must be accorded to their conscientious objections to euthanasia and assisted suicide, the importance of palliative care as an alternative to euthanasia - all these are treated extensively within the parameters of the Catholic tradition in the Vatican Letter. Continue reading

• Bill Uren SJ AO is a Jesuit Priest, Scholar in Residence at Newman College at the University of Melbourne. He has lectured in moral philosophy and bioethics at the Universities of Melbourne, Murdoch and Queensland, and has served on over a dozen clinical and research ethics committees in universities, hospitals and research institutes.

Hundreds more explored the service but chose not to proceed, she says.

However, Young's conversations with 19 individuals who opted for euthanasia paint a picture of the inner turmoil and the weight of making such a final choice.

According to her research, many did not foresee the difficulty in setting the date and time for their own death.

Young describes the waiting period as a double-edged sword.

While it provided time to say goodbye, it also initiated a distressing countdown.

"Waiting for the day to arrive was an opportunity to prepare themselves and their families and friends for death but, for some, it felt like an unwelcome countdown - and choosing it was very tricky" says Young.

Young acknowledged that it is not an easy task for providers to euthanise people, and families of those who chose to die this way described it as a bittersweet experience.

"Families are both relieved that their loved one is no longer suffering, but also it's really hard to have this date hanging over your head of when you will die ... it's bittersweet.

"Before the assisted dying law came in there was so much discussion about how contentious this was and it is certainly a sensitive subject," she says.

"But the stigma from colleagues that assisted dying providers expected has largely not eventuated, which is great" says Dr Young.

Young says she has not encountered much stigma from people disagreeing with people's decision to be euthanised.

She says she recently started discussing euthanasia applications with cancer patients, their families and physicians and is describing the feedback as positive.

However despite the positive feedback, Young found that those being euthanised experienced gaps in the service.

"Patients who wanted counselling found that some of the professionals they spoke to were ill-equipped to discuss assisted dying" she says.

"Providers said they faced a steep learning curve in terms of navigating the eligibility assessment requirements and the Ministry of Health portal, and families said that there was a big gap in support after death for them."

• Counselling and Support

Source

• Stuff

Francis defined bad compassion as the law not to let the child grow in the mother's womb or the law of euthanasia in disease and old age."

Clarifying, he added "I am not saying it is a faith thing, but it is a human thing."

Francis remained adamant that life should not be toyed with "either at its inception or its conclusion."

The Pope's remarks came as he was en route from Marseille to Rome, following a two-day visit to the southern French city.

France on verge of legalising assisted suicide

Francis' comments were made against a background that France is on the cusp of potentially legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia through a contentious legislative proposal.

The parliamentary vote on the matter was been deferred to September 26-28, coincidentally following the Pope's visit to the country.

While Francis did not discuss euthanasia directly with French President Emmanuel Macron during their recent meeting, he emphasised that he had made his stance "unambiguously clear" during Macron's visit to the Vatican last year.

Belgian model

Macron, who had pledged to reform end-of-life care as part of his election campaign, expressed his inclination towards the Belgian model of euthanasia in April 2022.

The Belgian model of 'integral' end-of-life care consists of universal access to palliative care and legally regulated euthanasia.

It was legalised in Belgium in 2002, and permits euthanasia for adults and minors in exceptional cases.

In the ensuing years, euthanasia choice in Belgium has become more liberal.

Earlier this year, a 56-year-old Belgian mother who murdered her five children was euthanised at her own request.

In 2020, the Vatican stripped 15 of the Belgian Brothers of Charity psychiatric institutions of their Catholic status because euthanasia was permitted on their premises.

Advances in pain manaagement

During the course of the plane interview, Pope Francis highlighted the advancements in medical science that allow for effective pain management, reiterating his belief that life is sacrosanct and should not be trifled with.

On May 13, during the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima, he lamented the legalisation of euthanasia in Portugal, describing it as "a law that sanctions killing."

Pope Francis has consistently advocated for palliative care as a humane approach to treating those with severe illnesses, stating that while it is essential to accompany people towards the end of their lives, it is not ethical to hasten their death or assist in their suicide.

He has been equally forthright on the topic of abortion, likening it back in 2018 to contracting a "hitman" to dispose of an inconvenient individual.

Sources

• CNA

Fr Luca Favarin, 53, who had been suspended since last December, made the announcement of his dismissal from the clerical state in an August 24 post on Facebook, saying the Vatican decree had arrived the day before.

Favarin had been a priest of the Diocese of Padua since 1988 and, in recent years, has turned himself into a highly successful businessman as he has sought to reach out and work with migrants.

Favarin has been long at odds with official Catholic teaching on several hot-button issues, including same-sex marriage and euthanasia.

"I believe in the right to love and to see that love publicly recognised, also for people of the same sex," he once said.

Read More

In US author Lionel Shriver's well-reviewed novel, Should We Stay Or Should We Go, a middle-aged married couple makes a pact to end their own lives when they turn 80.

A nurse and a GP in the British National Health Service, Kay and Cyril Wilkinson have seen countless patients worn down by physical and mental decay.

They are determined to avoid the same fate.

Reluctant to burden the state or their kids, they make a pact: when Kate turns 80, they will jointly take their own lives.

At 50, that still seems a long way off.

But when Kate blows out her candles on her 80th birthday cake, things don't seem so clear cut.

The pair are still physically and mentally alert and living active lives.

What might they miss out on if they snuff it?

The novel cleverly devises options, including being sectioned by their children, experimenting with cryogenics, and living in a fancy rest home.

Most of us, from time to time, consider how life will pan out in old age.

The death of a parent can prompt speculation about our own demise.

Will we live to the same age?

Will we face the same impairments: loss of hearing, sight, mobility, or mind?

Mostly it's not maudlin, just curiosity. And we are heartened by science and statistics.

There are cures for many of the conditions that struck down our parents and new drugs to mitigate or stave off the extreme effects of other ailments. New Zealand now has the fourth-longest life expectancy in the world after Monaco, Japan and Australia.

As a Pakeha New Zealand woman, I can expect to live to 84.57 years.

My husband, at 80, is nearing the national average for Pakeha men.

Statistics for Maori and Pasifika, of course, are nowhere near as rosy.

While life expectancy is increasing for both populations, the gap persists.

Maori men's life expectancy at birth is 73.4 years, Maori women 77.1; Pasifika men can expect to live to 75.4, Pasifika women 79.

But here's a thought: what if our health or happiness does not determine the age at which we die, but by those who deem us surplus to requirements and a burden on the state?

Unthinkable? Read on.

• Venetia Sherson ponders an unnerving prospect.

Speaking last week at the Perugia Journalism Festival on "The last journey (towards the end of life)," Paglia stated that the Catholic Church did not provide a fixed moral code, but that its teachings were the result of ongoing dialogue and theological thought.

Archbishop Paglia said the Catholic Church "does not have a package of prêt-à-porter, a pre-packaged truth as if it were a distributor of truth pills."

Instead, its teaching results from the idea that "Theological thought evolves throughout history in dialogue with the Magisterium and with the experience of the people of God in a dynamic of mutual enrichment."

The archbishop also highlighted the Church's current focus on achieving an ethical and legal framework for end-of-life decisions.

Paglia argued that a legal mediation for assisted suicide in specific circumstances, as mandated by the Italian Constitutional Court in 2019, was feasible and could be the "greatest common good concretely possible in the conditions in which we find ourselves," while insisting that he would not practise assisted suicide personally.

Paglia's comments generated significant criticism from some who believed that he appeared to support end-of-life legislation and that he was advocating for legal protection for euthanasia. Some also raised concerns about his comparison of the death penalty and euthanasia.

Paglia opposed to euthanasia

In response, the Pontifical Academy for Life released a statement on Monday, affirming that Paglia remained opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide and was in line with the Church's teachings.

The statement argued that Paglia's presentation had touched only briefly on the Constitutional Court's ruling and that the context of his remarks had not been fully developed.

Italy's current law dictates that anyone who assists another person in committing suicide may be jailed for between five and twelve years.

A 2019 ruling by Italy's Constitutional Court partially decriminalised assisted suicide under certain conditions, including that the person be "kept alive by life support treatments and affected by an irreversible pathology, which is a source of physical or psychological suffering they consider intolerable, but fully capable of making free and informed decisions."

The ruling also mandated that parliament pass legislation regulating assisted suicide. However, Italian lawmakers have yet to pass the required legislation, and the issue has become a source of ongoing debate and division.

Sources

CruxNow

CathNews New Zealand

It is 16 years since Genevieve Lhermitte (pictured left and far right) killed her son and four daughters, aged three to 14 on 28 February 2007, while their father was away.

She then tried to commit suicide. After failing to do so, she called emergency services for help.

Lhermitte was sentenced to life in prison in 2008. In 2019 she was moved to a psychiatric hospital.

In Belgium the end of life law allows for people to choose to be euthanised.

They must be deemed to be suffering from "unbearable" and incurable psychological as well as physical suffering.

In addition, the person must be conscious of their decision and able to express their wish in a reasoned and consistent manner.

"It is this specific procedure that Mrs Lhermitte followed, with the various medical opinions having been collected," her lawyer said.

Psychologist Emilie Maroit says the Belgian mother likely chose to die on 28 February in a "symbolic gesture in respect for her children".

"It may also have been for her to finish what she started, because basically she wanted to end her life when she killed them," Maroit says.

The deaths of the five children and their mother's subsequent murder trial rocked Belgium.

During the trial, Lhermitte's lawyers argued she was mentally disturbed. She should not be sent to prison, they declared.

The jury found her guilty of premeditated murder however.

She was sentenced to life in jail.

In 2010 Lhermitte filed a civil lawsuit demanding up to three million euros (£2,655,840) from a former psychiatrist. She claimed his "inaction" failed to prevent the murders.

Ten years later, she ended up abandoning the legal battle.

Last year, 2,966 people died via euthanasia in Belgium. Their number had increased by 10 percent in comparison with 2021.

Cancer remains the most common reason for people wishing to be euthanised.

However, officials say in nearly three out of four requests the patient presented "several types of suffering, both physical and psychological".

Since 2014, Belgium has allowed children to be helped to die as well as adults.

They must be terminally ill, in great pain and have parental consent.

Source

• BBC

He's concerned about ACT Party leader David Seymour's desire to widen the End of Life Choice Act criteria. Seymour argues the change is necessary, as many who want assisted suicide are "missing out".

Seymour says this is mainly because those people don't have a terminal illness likely to end their lives within six months.

The six-month terminal prognosis requirement prevents those with chronic conditions or disabilities from being eligible.

Betty argues broadening the eligibility criteria would not improve equitable choice for those facing end-of-life decisions.

It should not progress in light of the current palliative care climate in New Zealand, he cautions.

Nor should it happen without careful analysis.

Despite its supreme importance to New Zealand's health system, palliative care is not well catered for, says Betty.

"There's no strategic plan as to what is going to happen with palliative care, there's fragmented services, lack of funding… the list goes on. It's not a situation we can allow as a first-world, caring society."

The contrast and imbalance of palliative care vs assisted suicide and euthanasia is sizeable and cause for concern, he says.

"We have one part of the system fully-funded and overseen in an apparently coherent way by the Ministry of Health (assisted suicide and euthanasia), and the other sector that doesn't even have a strategic plan in place, that is inequitably funded, and has no coherent overview of how to develop the service.

"Why don't we have the exact focus on palliative care, so anyone making the biggest decision of life can make an equitable, informed choice?"

It's remiss of the Government, politicians and the Ministry of Health, he says.

Betty says New Zealand's 5,500 GPs, specialist GPs, trainees and rural hospital doctors often provide palliative care to their patients free of charge.

That's because there is no funding available for end-of-life care - a serious failing of the system, he says.

"Palliative care is so dependent on local funding, which is traditionally done by DHBs, but there's a total lack of funding, resourcing and a national approach."

This, coupled with a growing workload and an increasing complexity in clinical patient needs, adds pressure to palliative care practices.

"The question becomes - why don't we have that exact same focus on palliative care," Betty says.

The Assisted Dying Service Data and Report from 7 November 2021 to 30 September 2022 says only about 80 percent of those choosing assisted suicide or euthanasia have access to palliative care.

Betty cautions against this analysis.

"It doesn't show perceptions of what is going on or the quality of care they are receiving," he says.

The data's effectiveness should be questioned when the Act is reviewed, he adds.

"Everyone is affected by death and dying. That is part of health. Good dying and having equitable choice is a fundamental part of the healthcare system we set up. It has to be given space and focus at this point."

Source

• Scoop
• NZ Herald
• 1News

A year after coming into force, the End of Life Choice Act is working well and opponents of the law change had "melted away," Seymour says.

"The figures overwhelmingly show a law that is working. People can and do get through the process to become eligible for assisted dying, some change their mind, some are assessed as not eligible. That is what we'd expect if the law was working."

In the year since the law was passed, 214 patients have been euthanased.

In all, 596 people have applied, and 294 have been deemed eligible and 120 people were turned down because they were not eligible.

Seymour says a third of the ineligible patients were declined because they didn't meet the criteria of having a terminal illness likely to end their lives within six months.

He says he suspects "some if not many have an illness that is terminal but without a certain timeframe."

Seymour says he agreed to the six-month timeframe to gain the Green Party's support to pass the bill.

"I fear that compromise is leading to people ... missing out on having choice and control, even though their long suffering is just as real as those with a more immediate terminal condition."

His original bill would have allowed non-terminal patients with "grievous and irremediable conditions" to get access to voluntary euthanasia.

The amended law, which was voted on in a public referendum, made it explicit that applicants could not get access to assisted dying on the basis of disability or mental illness alone.

Seymour says he will argue for the euthanasia law criteria to be broadened when the law comes up for review in 2024.

He is also concerned that one in six applicants had died of underlying conditions before they were able to get an assisted death.

"It's excluding people with long-term conditions, and that means a lot of suffering that may not be necessary," he says.

Better palliative care

While Seymour wants the law relaxed, health experts are calling for wider support for palliative care services.

Royal College of GPs says it's too early for any new legislation changes.

The College is calling for ongoing observation for the next 12 months.

The Royal College of GPs medical director, Dr Bryan Betty says he'd like more funding for palliative care services sector-wide.

"There is underfunding for hospice, there is underfunding for specialist palliative care services, and there's under-funding of palliative care to general practices which support patients who are dying."

Since December 2021, numbers seeking end-of-life treatment have risen from around 15 per month to around 20 in September 2022.

Source

• NZ Herald
• One News

"I humbly beg forgiveness for the evil committed by so many Christians against the Indigenous peoples," the pope said. Canada's own government has previously expressed its regret.

Francis was in Canada to apologize, not to preach — which may be why he said relatively little about that country's legalization of euthanasia in 2016.

Rebranded as "medical assistance in dying," or MAID, the formerly taboo practice is now hailed in Canada as both humane medical care and essential to patient autonomy. It enjoys strong support in opinion polls and the full backing of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's federal government.

Still, Francis's church is doctrinally opposed to euthanasia, and he has personally condemned it, so the pope did allude, in one of his public addresses, to "patients who, in place of affection, are administered death."

He could, and should, have said more. Even before Francis's visit, there was evidence euthanasia has problems.

Between 2016 and 2021, Canadian medical personnel administered lethal doses to more than 31,000 people who were usually — but not always — terminally ill.

Since 2019, Canadian law has said that "intolerable" suffering due to "incurable" illness, which could include various chronic disabling conditions, may be sufficient to qualify for a lethal injection.

These permissive standards may be resulting in avoidable death or distress for vulnerable people, and disability rights advocates are expressing concern, as Maria Cheng of the Associated Press reported Aug. 11.

She told the story of 61-year-old Alan Nichols, who requested — and received — euthanasia less than a month after entering a British Columbia hospital in June 2019, suffering from suicidal thoughts, dehydration and malnutrition.

The decision was apparently based on a medical history that included serious but typically non-life-threatening conditions such as depression and hearing loss.

His grief-stricken family has sought explanations as to how doctors could have found their loved one competent to "choose" death much less needful of it.

"Somebody needs to take responsibility so that it never happens to another family," Trish Nichols, Alan's sister-in-law, told Cheng.

The family's inquiries to provincial and federal authorities have so far produced only officials' insistence that Alan met the criteria for physician-assisted death.

Cheng described the case of a man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease, who felt driven to seek euthanasia because British Columbia officials would not provide him adequate support to live at home.

In a case separately reported by Canadian media this year, a 31-year-old Toronto woman with a disability sought and received approval for euthanasia after what she said was a futile search for safe housing — only to decide to continue living after private parties helped her find an appropriate dwelling.

While the details of these and other instances are difficult for outsiders to parse, and while it is true, as Canadian officials told Cheng, that 65 percent of euthanasia procedures have been performed on cancer patients, the issue's very murkiness and subjectivity is a warning sign.

In this context, any mistake could be irreversible.

Cheng reports that, as compared with the other six countries where euthanasia is legal, Canada's margin for error may be wider.

Canadian patients are not required to exhaust all treatment options before seeking MAID. Canada allows nurse practitioners as well as doctors to end patients' lives.

Another warning sign: Last year, a top United Nations disability rights official wrote to Trudeau advising him that legalizing euthanasia for the non-terminally ill creates an implied negative judgment on "the value or quality of life of persons with disabilities." Continue reading

Australian ethicist Dr Peter Singer​'s views are "harmful" to those with disabilities, the activists say.

Singer​ is back in Auckland for a one-off event at Trusts Arena in Henderson on Saturday night.

He was originally booked to speak two years ago, but the pandemic led to the event being cancelled.

The 2020 event also courted some negative attention from disability rights activists. Once the initial venue SkyCity learned of this, it cancelled Singer's booking.

Singer is known to have advocated for parents of newborns with severe disabilities to have the right to euthanise the child.

Disabled Persons Assembly NZ's Emily Tilley (pictured)​, is one of many who says Singer's views are dangerous.

Singer's views are "offensive to disabled people" says Tilley. She's unhappy to hear he's come to New Zealand to speak.

The idea of euthanising disabled people is based on a false premise, she says.

"It is based on the inaccurate premise that disabled peoples' lives are not as ‘happy' as the lives of non-disabled people," Tilley says.

Journalist and former human rights commissioner Robyn Hunt​ agrees.

Singer's stance was "devaluing", she says. But while she disagrees with his point of view, she supports Singer's right to free speech.

Like Tilley, she's nonetheless disappointed he's been given a platform in New Zealand.

Singer has confirmed he supports the idea of infanticide in certain circumstances.

That view is totally distinct from his views about the rights of disabled people more generally, he says.

"I fully stand by the rights of people with disabilities to have the best possible life that they can, to be fully integrated into society. I support the laws against discrimination against people with disabilities," he says.

Suzi Jamil​, the director of Think Inc, the company promoting Singer's tour, is standing by her decision to promote Singer.

She is inviting those who oppose his views to come to the show. They may participate in a question and answer session, she says.

Singer's current tour is to promote his non-profit organisation The Life You Can Save. It is dedicated to persuading people to donate to life-saving charities in developing nations.

Source

• Stuff

The End of Life Choice Act came into effect late last year and, from then till March of this year, 66 people have had an assisted death.

Of the applicants, 79 percent are Pakeha, six percent are Maori, two percent are Asian and 13 percent did not describe their ethnicity. Read more

The apparent media anxiety over Luxon's Christianity is incoherent; his four immediate predecessors Judith Collins, Todd Muller, Simon Bridges and Bill English all professed a form of Christian faith.

Then adding to the incoherence is that no point has the new deputy leader, Nicola Willis been challenged about her faith or lack of it, her values and what underpins them.

Luxon, whose political career is just a year old, is surprised people are interested in his religious views.

He says for him, his practice of the Christian religion is "a personal thing but it's got nothing to do with my politics."

After his leadership promotion earlier this week, Luxon said his faith was "often misrepresented and portrayed very negatively".

"My faith is actually something that has grounded me. It has given me context and put into context something bigger than myself.

"But I want to be very clear. We have a separation between politics and faith...

"People shouldn't be selecting a MP because of their faith.

"I am here to represent all New Zealanders, not just people of one faith or one interest."

He made a similar statement to the Herald last year when he said he wasn't "an ideologue who is trying to jam a view of Christianity out on my workforce as a CEO, or as a politician."

"I haven't led Air NZ or Unilever as a Christian CEO. I've led it as a CEO who just happens to be a Christian."

He reiterated that perspective in his maiden speech, saying "I believe no religion should dictate to the State, and no politician should use the political platform they have to force their beliefs on others."

Luxon describes himself as "pro-life"; he is anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia, however has ruled out changing abortion laws in New Zealand if he becomes Prime Minister.

His pro-life view are balanced out by his deputy, Nicola Willis, a Wellington liberal, Luxon says.

"I think the reality is there are New Zealanders who have those views, pro-life or pro-choice. We can hold different views and be respectful of each other as a consequence."

Abortion was removed from the Crimes Act in Parliament last year after a conscience vote found a majority of MPs was in favour of it.

The change means abortion services are now available to individuals not more than 20 weeks pregnant without a test.

Health practitioners can provide abortion services to someone over that threshold if they believe it is clinically appropriate and have consulted with another professional.

Luxon was one of 15 MPs to vote against the first reading of the bill prohibiting protesting in "safe areas" outside abortion clinics.

He was also against legalising cannabis.

Source

• NewsHub
• NZ Herald

But in September 2019 he decided the time had come to leave the church behind. He filled out a form that he had found online, accompanying it with a long letter explaining his reasons, and sent everything to the parish in his hometown.

Two weeks later, a note was put next to his name in the parish baptism register, formalizing his abandonment of the Catholic Church, and Nanetti became one of an increasing, though hard to quantify, number of Italians who have been "de-baptized."

Every year in Italy, more and more people choose to go through the simple process, which became available two decades ago at the behest of the Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics, abbreviated in Italian as UAAR.

A lack of data makes it difficult to establish how common the phenomenon is, but some dioceses are keeping track. The Diocese of Brescia, east of Milan, said in its diocesan newspaper in August that 75 people asked to be de-baptized in 2021, as opposed 27 in 2020.

Combining this partial data with activity on a website UAAR recently launched where people can register their de-baptisms, Roberto Grendene, national secretary of the UAAR, said the organization estimates that more than 100,000 people have been de-baptized in Italy.

De-baptism not possible. But...

The church quibbles with the word "de-baptism" — sbattezzo in Italian. Legally and theologically, experts say, this isn't an accurate term.

The Rev. Daniele Mombelli, vice-chancellor of the Diocese of Brescia and professor of religious sciences at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, said it's not possible to "erase the baptism because it's a fact that historically happened, and was therefore registered."

"What the procedure does is formalize the person's abandonment of the church," said Mombelli.

While agreeing that it is impossible to cancel a baptism, Italy's Personal Data Protection Authority now states that everyone has the right to abandon the church.

The de-baptism is finalized once an applicant declares the intention to abandon the church and the decision is registered by the church authorities, normally the local bishop.

But according to canon law, anyone who goes through the procedure is committing the crime of apostasy, which, Mombelli said, comes with "severe consequences."

An apostate immediately faces ex-communication from the church, without the need for a trial. This means that the person is excluded from the sacraments, may not become a godparent and will be deprived of a Catholic funeral.

"There's a substantial difference between the sin of apostasy and the crime of apostasy," Mombelli said. "An atheist commits the sin because it's an internal decision, and they can be forgiven if they repent. An apostate, instead, manifests their will to formally abandon the church externally, so they face legal consequences for their decision."

De-baptism is not exclusive to Italy, Grendene said, and the UAAR website includes a section monitoring how the procedure is being carried out abroad, but only very few countries regulate it. In the rest of the world, humanist and atheist organizations, such as Humanists International, pay more attention to apostasy than governments do.

The reasons behind de-baptism vary from person to person. But many of the de-baptized described their choice as a matter of "coherence."

Pietro Groppi, a 23-year-old from Piacenza who got de-baptized in May 2021, said that the first question he asked himself before sending his form was "Do I believe or not?" and the answer was simply, "No."

But for many, abandoning the church is a statement against its positions on LGBTQ rights, euthanasia and abortion.

Nanetti said that being de-baptized helped him affirm his own identity as bisexual. "I had to get distance from some of the church's positions on civil rights matters," he said.

The church's stance on sexuality helped push Groppi to seek out de-baptism as well, though he's not affected personally. He finds the Vatican's position on these matters "absurd," and he's unhappy with how the church meddles with Italian politics.

Francesco Faillace, 22, now going through the de-baptism procedure, said: "I've been an atheist since basically forever. For the church, being baptized means that you're a Catholic, but that's not the case. I've personally been baptized for cultural reasons more than religious because that's how it goes in Italy."

Faillace believes that if all the people who don't truly identify as Catholics were to be de-baptized, official percentages of Italian Catholics would be significantly lower.

The latest data seems to back him up.

In 2020, sociologist Francesco Garelli conducted a large study financed by the Italian Catholic Bishops Conference that concluded that 30% of the Italian population is atheist — around 18 million people.

The Rev. Alfredo Scaroni, pastor in a town of 9,000 in northern Italy, has noticed an increasing number of people distancing themselves from the church. If more than 15% of the population appear at Sunday Mass, he said, it is an achievement.

"The church is having a large conversation on atheism, and, from our side, we need to practice more acceptance and attention," Scaroni said.

Grendene, of the UAAR, said many Italians are still unaware of de-baptism as an option.

In the past, the association would organize "de-baptism days" to advertise it, he said, but it turns out that the church itself is de-baptism's best promoter.

"Whenever the Vatican is at the centre of a controversy, we see the access to our website grows dramatically," said Grendene, pointing out that on two days in June, traffic on the UAAR website went from a daily average of 120 visitors to more than 6,000.

Not coincidentally, perhaps, a few days earlier the Vatican sent a note to the Italian government, asking to change some of the language in a proposed law aimed at criminalizing discrimination based on sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.

• Sara Badilini is an author at Religion News Service.

The Premier, who is a devout Catholic, said the debate is 'very real and very personal' for him because of his recent experience.

"This time last week I was in the last place many of us would want to be. In a hospital, next to a bed, visiting a patient with a terminal illness. That patient is my grandmother," he began his speech on Friday morning.

"She's over 90 years old and now she's dying from pancreatic cancer. As I sat next to her, holding her hand, I could tell that she was in great pain and that she wanted it to be over."

Read More

When faced with the terminal suffering of someone you love, almost nothing else matters. I understand the pain. The renewed debate about voluntary assisted dying in NSW is personal for me - my mother died earlier this year following a battle with a terrible disease over a number of years.

There were days when I cried just wishing she would walk, talk or laugh again. It is also easy in these circumstances to understand how people wish it would just end, believing quality of life is over. I don't agree.

In the last 12 months of Mum's life, my eldest daughter was going through a marriage breakdown. It was heart-wrenching for everyone. In the middle of this, my daughter went to visit my mum.

She greeted my daughter with tears and eyes that shared the pain. When my daughter came home, she said, "I have never felt so loved." It was as if my mum's eyes had given her the hug she needed, the tears, the comfort.

Life to life. Soul to soul.

It was a reminder of the beauty and power of life. Surprising, connecting and caring when no one thought this was possible. This is not meant to say I wasn't in anguish at times seeing Mum as she was.

In this debate, we find ourselves on the edge of what it means to be human and looking for an answer. Voluntary assisted dying is introduced to us; it looks neat and easy compared with the messiness and struggle of the natural journey to what we fear might be a difficult death.

But there is nothing neat and easy about agreeing to end a life, however, well-motivated the choice seems. Even writing these words reminds me why we would never consider these options normally.

I think if we understood what can be achieved by modern palliative care, delivered where and when it is needed, and if we stood back as a society and became less afraid of dying and the challenges it brings, we might realise that these moments can be a gift: as I discovered in the dying days of my mother.

Despite good intentions, I just don't think laws can replace human love, compassion and ingenuity. When we lose sight of the intrinsic and immeasurable worth of every moment, for every human life, the laws put in place never protect in the way we hope they might. The unintended consequences can bruise, numb and lessen the spirit of who we are as a people.

But instead, it clearly appears that more often than not, Catholics - much like the general public - make important decisions on who to vote for, and where to come down on crucial issues, based primarily on the political party they affiliate with and from their cultural, economic and political leanings as being either conservative or liberal.

Putting faith on the back burner is not Christocentric, and is not Catholic.

And so when it comes to the life and death issues facing billions of suffering brothers and sisters - born and unborn, in one's nation, as well as in all other countries - Catholics for the most part, don't look, sound or act much different than the larger secular population. And that's not good.

But in the Gospel, Jesus puts forth to his followers this challenging directive: "You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house."

In a world that is so often darkened by what Pope Francis calls the "culture of indifference," we, the modern-day followers of Jesus, like his ancient followers, are called to radiate the Master's light of love upon the various sufferings of countless brothers and sisters.

But we are taking this mandate too lightly - in a fractured and partial way.

In general, I have long found that very often Catholics with conservative leanings, more or less oppose abortion, infanticide, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, promiscuous public school sex education and government attacks on religious liberty and traditional marriage.

And in general, I have long found that very often Catholics with liberal leanings, more or less support nonviolent peace initiatives, demilitarization, drastically cutting military budgets and redirecting those funds to end global hunger and poverty, protecting the environment while working to end human-induced climate change, abolishing capital punishment, welcoming migrants and refugees, opposing racism, and fighting to stop human trafficking.

Each of these efforts is morally commendable - to a point.

But the problem is that when it comes to conservative Catholic social action initiatives and liberal Catholic social action initiatives, it most often boils down to "never the twain shall meet."

And this is disastrous - disastrous for our Catholic faith and for all who will continue to suffer because we prefer biased, ideological, narrow-minded tunnel vision to open-minded, heartfelt Catholic dialogue that places the Gospel and Catholic social teaching as our foundation.

Catholic conservatives and Catholic liberals desperately need to pray and take concrete steps in forging a unity designed to work together to develop holistic nonviolent strategies aimed at protecting the life and dignity of every single human being from conception to natural death - with a preferential option for the poorest and most vulnerable, including our common earth-home.

Instead of ranking the life issues, we need to link them, always bearing in mind that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Thus, all the life-links need to be strong!

Imagine what a moral, political, economic, cultural and religious beacon of light the Catholic Church would be if conservative Catholics and liberal Catholics would come together, in a determined way to learn from each other, to pray together and to work together with Christocentric passion building Pope Francis' "culture of encounter" where all life is respected, protected and nurtured!

• Tony Magliano is an internationally syndicated Catholic social justice and peace columnist. He is available to speak at diocesan or parish gatherings. Tony can be reached at tmag6@comcast.net.