Sign In / Register
Bev Mullan with her husband Dave
Yes. Bev Mullan
Red Beach resident Bev Mullan lost her husband, Dave, to cancer last year. Dave campaigned for many years in favour of End of Life Choice, including writing a blog during his long illness.
My late husband Dave was a retired Methodist minister fighting for his right to die with dignity. After 16 years of advanced prostate cancer that metastasised into the spine, we together supported the End of Life Choice Act.
During his lifetime career in the church, Dave saw people die badly. Unfortunately, last December, we faced the same situation after a 16-year rollercoaster journey – when all he wanted was to end on a good note without the suffering and pain.
Family were with him at home in the last weeks and it has left with us flashback memories of those weeks, instead of happy memories of the past 60 years. Our hope was that the Bill might have become law in time for him to choose to have a farewell with family and friends and depart this life with dignity.
This did not happen.
Only those who have never witnessed a loved one suffering to the bitter end could refuse the basic human right to have a say in their own death and dignity.
Unfortunately, palliative care does not work for everyone, but I cannot speak highly enough of the care they are able to give.
We absolutely must do better and assisted dying gives us that choice. A properly devised provision for end of life choice will not have a widespread implication for most people, but it will have substantial personal benefits for some. A progressive society such as ours should be moving firmly towards delivering something better for its citizens. Central to that should be a trend towards dignity in death.
To deny end of life choice to people as they pass from fullness to an existence that is little more than biological is to degrade the concept of sacredness. The present law denies me the right to act for myself according to my personal Christian faith and beliefs. For me, choice about ending my life in appropriate circumstances is an issue of human rights. Under the present law I am deprived of this right.
Finally, when you have been living a life with meaning and purpose, and talking about the last few months or weeks facing death in discomfort and pain, I think we should then be able to make a choice.
No. Henoch Kloosterboer
Snells Beach resident Henoch Kloosterboer is campaign manager of votesafe.nz – a public information campaign which questions the safety of the End of Life Choice Act.
Voting for life or death is so incredibly important that we all need to fully understand the potential no-turning-back outcome of the binding referendum we will vote on at the coming election. Kiwi voters need to think like lawyers and research the End of Life Choice Act, so that they understand the implications their decision could have on our society. Ask yourself, “Is the Act safe for everyone in our community – not just me?”
When we consider euthanasia and assisted suicide, many of us recall a harrowing experience when a family member or friend is taken from us by a terminal disease. We may have felt uncomfortable or helpless during our loved one’s final months, seeing their health decline. In Western society we celebrate birth, but we tend to avoid death and dying because it is just too difficult and heart-wrenching for us to deal with.
I felt this pain when my step-mum was diagnosed with a terminal illness, but I also saw the beauty and grace she gained and gave during her final years. She received a three to six month prognosis and under the End of Life Choice Act, she would have qualified for euthanasia or assisted suicide, but she continued to make memories for more than three years. I think she may have put pressure on herself to end her life prematurely, because she was always giving and never wanted to be a burden on her family or the healthcare system.
End of life suffering and dignity are challenging experiences and values that mean different things to all of us. Our regional inequities when accessing palliative care – with Māori being disproportionally affected – mean some people may feel they have no real options for truly compassionate care.
With improvement, this would significantly reduce the suffering experienced by vulnerable people in our community with terminal illnesses. Should those same vulnerable people be the first on the ranks to be euthanised or given assisted suicide? We all want compassion, dignity and choice, but does this justify supporting an unsafe law?
The Act does not require assessment for coercion, nor is there any requirement for a young adult’s whānau to be informed of a euthanasia or assisted suicide request. Diagnosis and prognosis of short life expectancy are traumatic for anybody, and the Act does not protect people from making hasty decisions when confronted with shock and grief. The Act does not require a person to have mental health support, evidence of physical pain or have undergone any life-saving or life-prolonging treatment. We cannot risk the lives of any New Zealanders to a potentially unsafe law.
We are not voting on the concept of euthanasia, but on a specific Act. Is it safer and more compassionate to vote no? I fear that with this referendum people might only consider the impact on themselves and not reflect on whether the Act is safe enough to protect those in our community who are most at risk.
No. Rod MacLeod
Rod is the clinical advisor to Hospice NZ. He recently retired from clinical practice after 30 years as a palliative care specialist, most recently at Hibiscus Coast. He was New Zealand’s first (and only) professor in palliative care.
“It is unfortunate that people refer to “the euthanasia referendum” – it is not. It is a referendum on one piece of legislation that, in my view, is dangerously flawed. It is important for all who intend to vote to look closely at the End of Life Choice Act.
The Act has a lack of adequate safeguards. There is no stand down period between the request, and administration of the lethal drug – the only delay between request and death is the 48 hours required to check the paperwork. In other jurisdictions, such as Oregon, the cooling off period is 15 days, nine days in the Australian state of Victoria, and 10 days in Canada. There are 68 safeguards in the legislation in Victoria and within three months of the law being passed there in 2018, people were already pushing for changes to broaden the criteria.
The Act requires a person to have six months or less to live. Sadly, it is not easy for doctors to determine how long someone has to live. A study of doctors’ prognoses for terminally ill patients found that only 20 percent of predictions were accurate, so 80 percent were wrong.
The process outlined in the Act, does not allow or encourage discussion with family and whanau. In our multi-cultural society, especially for Māori and Pasifika, collective group decision-making is expected. Under this Act, a person’s loved ones may not be aware of a request for euthanasia. There is no opportunity to address the underlying factors that motivate the request, such as unresolved physical or emotional pain, fear of being a burden, depression or isolation.
Sadly, several long-term conditions that cause disability are also terminal illnesses. People living with a disability caused by neuromuscular diseases, for example, will meet the criteria, as these chronic conditions are incurable.
One of the most challenging aspects for clinicians, should this Act become law, is the expectation that doctors will ‘do their best’ to detect coercion. Detecting coercion is difficult as it can be very subtle and may not even be ill intended – such as when patients see the stress of family members who are trying very hard to care for them, which often leads to the feeling of being a burden.
In my view, assisted dying has no place in palliative care in NZ.”
