{"id":2582,"date":"2018-03-02T21:26:41","date_gmt":"2018-03-02T21:26:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/tvndy.ca\/?p=2582\/"},"modified":"2018-10-24T17:30:38","modified_gmt":"2018-10-24T17:30:38","slug":"webcast-archive-euthanasia-bill-proposed-in-new-zealand","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/2018\/03\/webcast-archive-euthanasia-bill-proposed-in-new-zealand\/","title":{"rendered":"Webcast archive: Euthanasia bill proposed in New Zealand"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" width=\"1180\" height=\"664\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/czSjaqJ5_KM?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"autoplay; encrypted-media\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>In this episode of\u00a0<em>Euthanasia &amp; Disability<\/em>, Amy Hasbrouck, Christian Debray and Taylor Hyatt discuss:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>An expansive assisted suicide and euthanasia bill is proposed in New Zealand<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Please note that this text is only a script and that our webcast contains additional commentary.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Today, we\u2019re looking at the\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.legislation.govt.nz\/bill\/member\/2017\/0269\/latest\/DLM7285905.html\">End of Life Choice Bill<\/a>\u00a0proposed in New Zealand, which would allow both euthanasia and assisted suicide. The NZ parliament is accepting comments from the public about the content of the bill, and we\u2019ve been asked by a New Zealand-based group to make a submission.<\/li>\n<li>Before getting to the bill itself, we restated our opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia (AS\/E), explaining our four main arguments:\n<ul>\n<li><strong>It\u2019s Unnecessary<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Everyone has the option to commit suicide or to refuse medical care and have palliative sedation on demand.<\/li>\n<li><strong>It\u2019s Discriminatory<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 While people without disabilities receive suicide prevention services if they express a wish to die, people with disabilities will be encouraged and assisted to kill themselves.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Choice is an illusion\u00a0<\/strong>\u2013 The choice to die cannot be free as long as people with disabilities don\u2019t have the choice in where and how to live.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Safeguards don\u2019t work<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Where these practices are legal, safeguards do not prevent people from disabilities from being wrongly killed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>The proposed bill essentially takes the worst parts of existing AS\/E laws, including Canada\u2019s, and combines them. First, the background of the bill is based on some popular misconceptions about what legislation can actually do.\n<ul>\n<li>The section that describes the need and context for the bill, claims to allow people \u201cto end their lives in peace and dignity, surrounded by loved ones.\u201d We pointed out that legalizing AS\/E does not guarantee an idealized death, nor can such an outcome be legislated. \u00a0There are many stages to the AS\/E \u201cprocess\u201d where things can go wrong.<\/li>\n<li>And while the government believes that \u201cpalliative care cannot alleviate all suffering,\u201d (which is false) we pointed out that the bill makes no attempt to ascertain or document the cause of a person\u2019s suffering, to learn the reason for the request for AS\/E, to provide suicide prevention intervention, or to change public policy so as to eliminate the causes of suffering.<\/li>\n<li>Among the sponsors\u2019 reasons for introducing the bill is to enable New Zealand can \u201ccatch up\u201d with the courts and governments around the world that permit assisted suicide.\u00a0 This is based on the false assumption that if a law is popular and adopted with good intentions, there won\u2019t be any problems with it.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>The eligibility criteria are similar to the Canadian law, except that:\n<ul>\n<li>there is no requirement that the person\u2019s death be \u201creasonably foreseeable;\u201d<\/li>\n<li>eligibility is limited to citizens and permanent residents.<\/li>\n<li>Eligibility does not depend on the person being free from abuse, coercion or \u201cexternal pressure.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>To be eligible for AS\/E under the New Zealand bill, the person must:\n<ul>\n<li>be aged 18 years or over;<\/li>\n<li>be a citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand;<\/li>\n<li>have a terminal illness \u201clikely to end their life within 6 months\u201d\u00a0<u>or<\/u>\u00a0\u201ca grievous and irremediable medical condition\u201d \u2013 (This does not take into account that diagnoses are not always accurate, and the bill doesn\u2019t define what a \u201cgrievous and irremediable medical condition\u201d is.)<\/li>\n<li>be \u201cin an advanced state of irreversible decline\u201d \u2013 (this isn\u2019t defined either.)<\/li>\n<li>experience \u201cunbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that he or she considers tolerable.\u201d The doctor is not required to ensure that the person has access to or receives palliative care, mental health treatment, or social supports.<\/li>\n<li>\u201cha[ve] the ability to understand\u201d the nature and consequences of assisted suicide and euthanasia. We recently talked about \u201ccapacity\u201d and the ability to make medical decisions; this section does not even rise to that level. Having \u201cthe ability to understand\u201d assisted suicide does not take into account:\n<ul>\n<li>the criteria for capacity to make medical decisions;<\/li>\n<li>risk factors for suicidality and resources for suicide prevention; or<\/li>\n<li>the presence of coercion, abuse or other circumstances pressuring someone to die.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>There is no requirement that the AS\/E request form be witnessed by someone who can attest to the capacity of the person making the request, and the voluntariness of the request.<\/li>\n<li>If the person requesting AS\/E cannot write, they have the option of getting someone to sign the authorization form on their behalf. \u00a0The person who signs must be an adult without \u201ca mental disability,\u201d though that term is not defined. As well, the signer cannot \u201c[know] that he or she stands to benefit from\u201d the person\u2019s death. The most obvious form of benefit is financial, like a will. However, family members may \u201cbenefit\u201d from no longer having the physical and financial responsibility of caring for someone. There are no penalties as long as the person claims to act in good faith.<\/li>\n<li>In addition to deciding if he believes the person is eligible, the first (or \u201cattending&#8221;) doctor must tell the person about their disease, its likely progression, and the \u2018irreversible nature\u201d of AS\/E. The doctor must discuss the other available \u201coptions for end of life care.\u201d The doctor must \u201cdo his best\u201d to ensure that the choice to die is not coerced. This includes \u201cencourag[ing] the person to talk about his or her choice with family, friends, and counsellors\u201d while ensuring that the person does not feel obliged to do so.\u00a0 Hopefully the person doesn\u2019t only choose to talk to people who approve of their plans to die, and nobody in the person\u2019s support system views disability negatively. There\u2019s no mention of how a doctor is supposed to detect coercion created by the person\u2019s circumstances.<\/li>\n<li>Once the first doctor has given the green light, a second physician, recruited by the government\u2019s \u201csupport and consultation\u201d group (SCENZ) must agree that the person is eligible. The second doctor must be \u201cindependent\u201d from the first, though there\u2019s no information about what that means; does it exclude connections among family members, friends, colleagues, or in financial relationships? Neither physician is required to have expertise in the person\u2019s condition.<\/li>\n<li>If either the first or second doctor is unsure about the person\u2019s \u201ccompetence\u201d (as referenced, but not defined, in \u00a7 12) they must ask for a mental health \u201cspecialist\u201d to be appointed by the SCENZ.\u00a0 The specialist will form an opinion about the person\u2019s competence and forward it to the physicians.<\/li>\n<li>The attending doctor must be in the room or \u201cin close proximity\u201d to the person when they die. This is not defined in the law. Thus, there is no certainty that the doctor will be able to record information about the timing of the death or respond to any complications.<\/li>\n<li>Here\u2019s what needs to be included in the report about the person\u2019s death:\n<ul>\n<li>Their name<\/li>\n<li>Their address<\/li>\n<li>How the lethal substance was given to them<\/li>\n<li>Any problems with the ingestion of the medication<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>Where does the buck stop?\n<ul>\n<li>The \u201csupport and consultation\u201d group (SCENZ) is responsible for compiling a list of doctors, pharmacists and mental health specialists willing to participate in the AS\/E program, coming up with standards for administering AS\/E, and advising doctors if needed.<\/li>\n<li>A registrar will collect forms related to the deaths, co-sign prescriptions, and report to the Minister of Health<\/li>\n<li>An \u201cend of life review committee\u201d will \u201creport its satisfaction\u201d with the case forms sent to it by the registrar.\u00a0 They may also \u201crecommend actions\u201d that the registrar \u201cmay take to follow up cases with which the review committee was not satisfied.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>The law doesn\u2019t assign responsibility for verifying that the person meets all eligibility criteria, that all safeguards have been complied with, that all requirements of the law have been followed, and determining if any deaths have occurred outside the scope of the law.<\/li>\n<li>A lot of information is missing. A few other problems we pointed out were:\n<ul>\n<li>There\u2019s no provision for collecting detailed demographic information:<\/li>\n<li>The bill does not ensure effective communication (expressive, receptive and impartial) with the person making the request;<\/li>\n<li>The bill does nothing to prevent doctor shopping;<\/li>\n<li>There is no process for recording the nature of the person\u2019s suffering and efforts to relieve it.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>At the end of the bill, there\u2019s a line that says anyone involved in the AS\/E process who acted \u201cin good faith\u201d even while violating any part of the law, cannot be held criminally responsible. Since \u201cgood faith\u201d is a subjective standard that is almost impossible to disprove, this clause essentially confers blanket immunity and undoes any other \u201cprotection\u201d the law provides.<\/li>\n<li>Finally, public records (like death certificates) will indicate that the person died of their underlying condition, rather than by AS\/E. This creates confusion in public health statistics on suicide and tends to hide the factors that lead to AS\/E, as well as abuses of the system.<\/li>\n<li>The bill\u2019s sponsors are overlooking many of the dangers of assisted suicide and euthanasia in their rush to catch up with \u201clenient\u201d countries where it\u2019s been legalized. They appear to be ignoring the lessons learned in Canada and elsewhere. We hope the legislators will hear us out, and not let good intentions lead to bad law.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n   ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<div class=\"entry-summary\">\n<div class=\"entry-summary\">\nThis week, we&#8217;re looking at a new euthanasia bill put forward in New Zealand,\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/2018\/03\/webcast-archive-euthanasia-bill-proposed-in-new-zealand\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &ldquo;Webcast archive: Euthanasia bill proposed in New Zealand&rdquo;<\/span>&hellip;<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/2018\/03\/webcast-archive-euthanasia-bill-proposed-in-new-zealand\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &ldquo;Webcast archive: Euthanasia bill proposed in New Zealand&rdquo;<\/span>&hellip;<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[92],"tags":[245,121,192,118],"class_list":["post-2582","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-webcast-archive","tag-bill","tag-euthanasia-disability","tag-legislation","tag-webcast","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2582","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2582"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2582\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3456,"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2582\/revisions\/3456"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2582"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2582"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2582"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}