Davison conviction a 'personal tragedy'

You have detailed  objections to Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.  These shortcomings, as you see them, could surely be covered in a NZ version of this legislation and ally your concerns -  were we ever to be fortunate enough to have such legislation enacted here.

When patients are "shopping around to find 2 willing physicians" to allow them to die with dignity there can be no doubt that they are determined to avoid a long-drawn-out pain-filled dignify-free death. Only antieuthanasia advocates motivated by their personal faith positions could find anything to in this to back their demand that  terminally ill humans be accorded less compassion than NZ law affords a pet rat.  In the end it is not within anyone else's capability to define what is, according to the ill person's self-knowlege, quality of life worth prolonging.

I appreciate your argument Mr Clifford. You have certainly raised valid concerns. It seems to me that arrangements like that described in Oregon go a long way towards addressing those concerns. Perhaps the arrangements could be improved - for instance by requiring random selection of physicians or having an additional licensing requirement that could be used to prevent for instance a private "medical death" company acting en masse.

I think some people will always have underlying moral objections to euthanasia. These arguments are useful for insuring a good implementation but don't really get at the underlying rightness / wrongness of the act itself.

It seems to me that Sean Davison not only acted in a loving manner but was morally right in his actions. It is high time that we provide laws that properly legislate for the legality of voluntary euthansia.

Yes, it’s not uncommon for euthanasia advocates to shy away from the facts of the Netherlands situation. However, there are also serious issues with the Oregon Death with Dignity Act and its implementation. Regarding the “stringent process” the following issues should be noted: 

The 2 physicians that are involved need not be the patient’s regular physician, and they need not consult him/her. There is nothing to prevent patients shopping around to find 2 willing physicians.

Another issue is that the physicians need not have any competence in palliative care or psychiatry.
Regarding psychiatry there has been a huge decline in the numbers of patients receiving mental health consultations (5% in 2004), which means there is no protection for the depressed or mentally ill.
The patient’s written request is witnessed by 2 people, who attest that as far as they know the patient is capable, acting voluntarily, and is not being coerced. The witness requirements can be satisfied even if one of the witnesses is a beneficiary of the patient’s willand the other is a friend of a beneficiary. Again, there are obviously serious issues with this.

Also, in general, the Oregon act has other serious deficiencies:
The act gives immunity to physicians providing the prescriptions based on a stated claim of “good faith” (despite all the holes in “stringent” process noted above). This standard of “good faith” is even lower than that of “negligence”.
There is no knowledge as to whether or not the regulatory reports prepared are accurate.
There are no enforcement provisions in the act.
The regulatory reports record that non-terminally ill people are receiving prescriptions.

So in summary, the act’s "stringent process" is seriously flawed. There is no transparency in reporting. There is no accountability. Worst of all vulnerable people are at risk of premature death. 

The State of Oregon in US has had Death With Dignity legislation for many years. This legislation specifically prohibits euthanasia where a physician or other person directly administers a medication to end another's life. The legislation has legalised the voluntary self-administration of a lethal medication prescribed by a physician for that purpose thereby enabling those who have passed through a stringent process to end their lives and their suffering.

To request a prescription a person must (among other requirements) have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and be capable of making a health care decision. Then, before obtaining the prescription, the person must make 2 oral requests, 1 written one, and 2 physicians must confirm the diagnosis. If the physicians believe that the person has a psychological impairment they must refer them for psychological assessment, and the prescribing physician must inform the patient of the alternatives - ie palliative care, hospice care, and pain control. I believe that these stringent requirements provide sufficient safeguards.

Hype o Thermia states "The whole point of voluntary euthanasia is that it is not imposed on people, it is something granted them when their clearly expressed wish has been evaluated and seen to be reasonable."

The Dutch experience shows that voluntary euthanasia inevitably leads to involuntary euthanasia. As stated earlier, in 2009 there were "550 deaths where the doctor killed the patient without explicit consent or request". How is this voluntary?

William Clifford  shows that he has not understood the plea for legalisation of voluntary euthanasia when he writes "These guidelines are so broad that nearly anyone could be euthanised (sic)."  The whole point of voluntary euthanasia is that it is not imposed on people, it is something granted them when their clearly expressed wish has been evaluated and seen to be reasonable.  what he is writing about is either murder or suicide.  The first of these is a crime and should remain so.  The second, while often regrettable, is a person's own decision implemented without the aid of anyone else.  Voluntary euthanasia is for those whose lives have become irremediably intolerable to them through illness, whose suffering is a bitter end phase of lives which have nothing ahead but more  suffering - no hope of remission, no cure, no cessation of misery until death. 

"But they need not be in pain" say the anti-euthanasia campaigners. If it is humane to drug them to a point where they are virtually insensible just so they will keep on breathing till the bitter end, to make some members of society feel better, that is a disgrace.  We have no right to demand unnecessary misery of those whose daily, nightly anguish is so far beyond our own understanding - where we are now in our personal journeys from birth to death. Anyone may refrain from asking for help when their own time comes and they find it is not made bearable by whatever palliative care is actually available to them, but they have no moral justification for imposing their beliefs on others.

Religion does not even need to enter this debate. It is a matter of protecting the vulnerable who may experience "dependency helplessness and loss of dignity" from doing their "duty" and killing themselves. The Dutch Medical Association has released new guidelines regarding euthanasia.  Acceptable criteria for euthanasia now include "mental and psychosocial ailments" such as "loss of function, loneliness and loss of autonomy". Also included are "disorders affecting vision, hearing and mobility, falls, confinement to bed, fatigue, exhaustion and loss of fitness". These guidelines are so broad that nearly anyone could be euthanised. It is a slippery slope. 

In a recent press release Right to Life New Zealand noted that "in Holland in 2009, 2636 patients were put to death by their doctor. In addition there were 400 deaths where the doctor assisted in the death of the patient and 550 deaths where the doctor killed the patient without explicit consent or request. It is also estimated that 10 per cent of patients die as a result of “terminal sedation”, that is from the withholding of food and hydration. The Dutch government is now considering approving euthanasia for the lonely and depressed. Euthanasia is a voracious monster, a right to die would soon become the duty to die."

Freedom of choice cannot be upheld as a guiding moral principle. We don't allow husbands the choice of beating their wives in the privacy of their own homes without intervening. We don't allow people the choice of driving down George St at 100kmh on the wrong side of the road. We have laws that protect the good of the wider society, even if it means some can't do what they want. One of those laws is that euthanasia is illegal. The reason is to protect the vulnerable of our society from premature death. Those who think that the legalisation of euthanisa will protect the vulnerable of our society are lacking in realism.

Raymondo, you have written  "it is a very drastic action to get rid of pain when someone is very ill by actually getting rid of them."

Pain is not the only reason that someone may wish to exercise their  right to die, as in Oregon. Dependency, helplessness and loss of dignity associated with terminal illness such as motor neurone disease are also compelling reasons for some people.

The Bible may provide your moral compass but does not do the same for everyone.

Other countries have other religions and for them the Bible is not the religious guide underpinning their code of law, though that could be claimed of NZ among other Western countries. 

But even putting that aside,  Raymondo12 may be too young to remember the wars NZ's men were sent to with the intention of killing.  Those (like Archibald Baxter) who believed as Raymondo12 does that "The Bible teaches "you shall not kill" and that is a good
enough rule for all individuals in all societies" were punished most cruelly. 

Apparently it is good - even the religious padres supported them in this - to kill healthy people with long lives ahead of them, people who want to love and raise their families and work and play, people who have every reason to value their lives and their futures.  Is this not so much the opposite of the situation of people wishing for euthanasia, that the sometimes-convenient, sometimes-ignored Biblical instruction is irrelevant  as a guide to law-making?

Garrick Tremain's cartoon yesterday said it so well - when we show, and are obliged by law to act with, more mercy to suffering animals than to our fellow humans, something is very wrong.

Some would say we have no definitive standard by which to judge whether euthanasia is wrong, but as William Clifford says it is a very drastic action to get rid of pain when someone is very ill by actually getting rid of them.

The Bible teaches "you shall not kill" and that is a good enough rule for all individuals in all societies. Even the state only has the right and power to kill guilty persons under strict circumstances. It has no right to harm or kill innocent people, so individuals have no right to kill any innocent individuals either.

We must remember that euthanasia is the elimination of a person's suffering by the elimination of the person. While a person may in a particular instance feel that he/she should be allow to die, for the benefit of the wider society this should not be legalised.

We live in a society where people are increasingly isolated. Those who are disabled, old and sick often do not have the family and community support seen in earlier generations. Should euthanasia be legalised these vulnerable people may feel the need to do the "right" thing. They feel it as a "duty" because they perceive themselves as a burden to society.

So, what we will discover should euthanasia be legalised is that what was permitted as a"right" quickly develops to a be "duty" and those who will suffer are the vulnerable members of our society. To expect that legislation can prevent this happening is naive.

The cartoon in today's ODT (4/11/2011)is both timely, accurate and succinct.

I believe its time for a change in the legislation and I would support a change such as in Oregon in the US.  For a terminally ill person who requests it, their doctor can write a prescription for medication to end suffering and provide for a dignified death. 

John Key has stated that he would support a bill to change the legislation through to select committee stage thereby allowing submissions and discussion on this topic.

Sean Davison, convicted of assisting his mother to commit suicide, is a brave man, not a criminal.  It would be good if our politicians, who are generally more interested in being elected than doing what is right, showed the same bravery and compassion in tackling the
issue of voluntary euthanasia. [Abridged]