The bishops' conference said a change in the law would affirm a self-centred view of life that proposes death as a solution to one's problems!

They also maintain the proposed law would be "bad news, since human life is not a commodity at anyone's disposal."

If passed by Spanish legislators, the controversial law would make Spain the fourth European country to legalize physician-assisted suicide. Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg are the other countries where euthanasia has been legalized.

Currently, assisted suicide is punishable in Spain with up to five years in prison.

A person found to have been directly involved in someone's death can face homicide charges and if convicted, the offender could face up to 10 years in prison.

The Bioethics Committee of Spain (CBE) has unanimously rejected the underlying principles behind the euthanasia bill.

The 12 member committee is responsible for issuing reports on matters with relevant bioethical implications.

The CBE noted the bill is invalid because it decriminalizes euthanasia as an exception to the general rule requiring life to be protected.

The committee further argued against the law because it recognizes death as a right that can be incorporated into the list of public health benefits.

Pope Francis has also expressed his concern over the proposed legalization of euthanasia in Spain.

Cardinal Juan Jose Omella said that Pope Francis had told a private meeting with local bishops that he is "worried" by the new measure. Omella stated that the pope is particularly concerned by the impact of such a decision on all life issues.

Spanish media have reported that one survey has revealed that up to 87% of the public is sympathetic to the introduction of a euthanasia law.

Another survey revealed that approximately 70% of doctors are in favour of legalizing euthanasia in Spain.

Sources

• Catholic News Agency
• National Catholic Reporter
• The Tablet

They make those calls in their 2020 Election Statement-Whakapuaki Poti 2020, which also urges people to consider the poor and vulnerable when voting.

The bishops' statement expressly says it is not the bishops' role to tell people who to vote for.

It is published in Maori and English throughout.

What kind of a nation do we want?

"We hope and work for a nation that looks to ensure the sanctity and wellbeing of whanau; that ensures families have time to spend with each other; that supports all families to access the basic human needs of food, clothing, housing, education and healthcare," the bishops say.

"Rather than thinking about what will benefit each of us personally regarding the election and referendum choices we face, we ask you to pray and discern what will protect the poor and vulnerable and what will uphold the dignity of creation so that we create a connected future for all, without discarding any of us."

Euthanasia

Urging a "no" vote in the End of Life Choice Act referendum, the bishops say the demand for euthanasia is driven not by pain but by personal and emotional factors such as fear of being a burden or being disabled, fears that reflect negative attitudes towards the elderly and disabled that run deep in society.

They note that key medical groups, including the Medical Association, oppose the End of Life Choice Act and criticise the act for not requiring that people first access palliative care when that is available.

Cannabis

On the recreational cannabis referendum, the bishops say as proprietors of many of the country's 237 Catholic schools with 66,000 students, they are keenly aware that rangatahi are the group most vulnerable to the adverse effects of cannabis.

"We think people do need to give serious thoughts to the issue, and we hope you will use your vote in a way that considers the impact of legalised recreational cannabis on the young and vulnerable in our communities."

Click here for the full 2020 Election Statement-Whakapuaki Poti 2020 in PDF format.

Source

Supplied

The New Zealand Catholic bishops' Nathaniel Centre for Bioethics is providing a series of weekly briefs for parish newsletters.

The first brief says:

The End of Life Choice Act is not an option of 'last resort.'

• It will not just apply to the 'exceptionally difficult cases'.
• It does not require that a person first make use of available treatments or counselling, nor that they first receive palliative care.
• A person does not need to be in physical pain.

If euthanasia becomes legal in NZ, people will access it because they think they lack other choices.

• Even though quality palliative care is effective, there is no corresponding legal right to access palliative care.
• Under current law, people can already say 'no' to treatments and can receive whatever level of pain relief they need. These days, no-one need die in pain.

The EOLC Act is badly drafted and seriously flawed. Whatever one's views about the idea of euthanasia, it is not 'compassion' to vote for a dangerous law.

See also:

• Risky Laws
• Vote Safe

Authorised by John Kleinsman, 15 Guildford Terrace, Thorndon, Wellington

The latest issue of the Nathaniel Centre Report is also available online.

It has articles that include scrutiny of the euthanasia and cannabis referendums.

Click here to read Nathaniel Centre Report 61 in PDF format.

Meanwhile in Australia several states are also debating whether to legalise euthanasia.

The state of Victoria, where voluntary assisted dying (VAD) was legalised a year ago, has reported more than ten times the anticipated number of deaths.

Victoria's Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board reported 124 deaths by assisted suicide and euthanasia during its first year.

Source

• catholic.org.nz
• catholic.org.nz
• thetablet.co.uk
• Image: 3.bp.blogspot.com

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

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

Hospice New Zealand, an umbrella organisation for all hospice services, wanted answers about how conscientious objection would operate if the End of Life Choice Act was accepted in the referendum in September. Continue reading

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

Unlike the last session, where MPs stayed voting until 1 am, the voting wrapped up at 10.30 pm.

Seymour's chief opponent Maggie Barry, was not in the House last night. Read more

Barry, one of the fiercest critics of David Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill, said the proposed question released on Wednesday was "misleading and too narrow".

Barry said the question was over-reliant on the name of the bill, which was euphemistic. Read more

Barrie said it was a "highly emotionally charged situation" and she acknowledged she was "over-zealous in expressing my disappointment with the way things were progressing". Continue reading

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

That was my first reaction to the End of Life Choice Bill that the polls show most of the population agrees with.

Of course, although I'm in my mid-sixties, I'm reasonably hale and hearty and surrounded by people I know and love in a warm house by the sea. I am quite prepared to stick around for a while.

Yet under the proposed law, if I were diagnosed with a terminal disease, and two doctors were willing to certify that I would not survive another six months, I could put up my shaking hand and ask for a clinical ejector seat that would fire me speedily and, one hopes, painlessly into the great unknown.

The key word here is "painlessly".

Going stoned unto death has some attraction.

However, too often in my experience of the natural departure of aged friends and parents, the medical fraternity cannot always contain the pain of the slowly dying.

That would not be nice. Who wants to end a long and fruitful life in agony?

The presence of high levels of pain that cannot be abated should be one of the criteria for a doctor stepping in, at your request, to metaphorically turn out the lights.

The specified six-month clause for recipients of the gift of euthanasia is more of a worry.

If a specialist told me I had less than half a year to go, but I would be quite comfortable for that period, I'd like to think I would have a party for everyone I knew and liked.

I would milk the drama, spend the last of my accumulated savings on fun and eventually fade into blissful, natural oblivion.

A dying friend and colleague did exactly that. Knowing he had a terminal condition, he arranged a pre-wake for himself in a waterfront bar.

All his mates turned up, gave eulogies, and we had a whale of a time.

The fact that under the proposed law you would have to be actually dying within six months to be "assisted" to the other side is unfortunate.

There are people who have grossly debilitating diseases who cannot face going on for a long, indeterminate period. Continue reading

• Bill Ralston
• Image: Noted

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

"Mr Seymour should withdraw his bill immediately. It is simply not feasible for MPs to try to ‘fix' the bill during the Committee of the Whole House stage, as that would deny New Zealanders their right to have a say on different proposals."

"This is simply too serious an issue for ad hoc amendments to be made on the floor of the house with no expert or wider consultation. There are just far too many problems that need further discussion."

"We are opposed to euthanasia in any form, but we are particularly worried about the unintended consequences of rushed ill-considered law in an area as fraught as this."

Dr Thirkell added that "If Mr Seymour won't do the right thing, then Parliament should recognise that this Bill is simply not fit for purpose, and resoundingly defeat it at Second Reading."

Du Plessis-Allan was commenting on a piece in Wellington's DomPost, More than a moral dilemma: The religious and community views on euthanasia.

She is the host of NewtalkZB's morning programme in Wellington.

In her DomPost opinion piece Ruby Macandrew had written that, while just over 12 percent of the New Zealand population identify as Catholic, their views on euthanasia have been one of the most prominent - and well-covered in the media.

Bishop Patrick Dunn, president of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops' Conference, who authored the conference's submission on behalf of six New Zealand-based bishops, believed the church's position on the End of Life Choice Bill carried significant weight due to its role within society.

"The Catholic Church's long involvement in the hospice movement and pastoral care of the dying and their families provides us with strong credentials to speak in societal debates about dying and death," he said.

John Kleinsman, the director of The Nathaniel Centre (the New Zealand Catholic Bioethics Centre) responded by saying his group, while under the NZCBC umbrella, was arguing more from a research and experience perspective rather than out of any church teachings.

"For most of history the Christian church has certainly been involved in caring for people on the margins, vulnerable people with nowhere to go and those sick or dying. The church has a longstanding involvement in supporting people at the end of life."

A University of Otago study, led by research fellow Jessica Young who reviewed 26 studies into New Zealander's euthanasia views over the past two decades and found 68 per cent were in support, said nearly 15 per cent were in opposition and the remainder unsure.

"There is no one typical supporter [but] ... it seems that a majority of the public is open to the possibility of legislative change."

She said public support of euthanasia appeared to have peaked in 2015 during the Lecretia Seales case and had remained reasonably stagnant since, despite the topic dominating headlines in the past year.

Young said it had also been disappointing to see a lack of research involving vulnerable and marginalised populations - the people potentially the most affected by the legislation.

Source

• stuff.co.nz
• NewstalkZB
• Image: nzcatholic.org.nz

More than 300 people cast their vote to vote against the End Of Life Bill, which is currently before the Select Committee.

The church's convener, Reverend Stuart Lange, said legalising euthanasia would be extremely dangerous for those who are depressed or elderly. Continue reading

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