Whatever our religious outlook, most people would agree that two scenarios we greatly fear are those of suffering a painful drawn-out death, or watching someone we love suffering such a death. This is, in part, what drives the current [...]]]> The following article is the latest  press release on euthanasia from the Inter Church Bioethics Council.

Whatever our religious outlook, most people would agree that two scenarios we greatly fear are those of suffering a painful drawn-out death, or watching someone we love suffering such a death. This is, in part, what drives the current debate on euthanasia and the growing moves to decriminalise/legalise both physician-assisted suicide (where the doctor prescribes the drugs and the patient takes them) and active euthanasia (where the doctor administers a lethal dose of drugs).

The InterChurch Bioethics Council[i] suggests there is more to be considered in this debate. Many different cultures and religions agree that life is a gift and see the individual in the context of wider relationships. In the face of suffering, the Christian response is to maximise care for those in most need.   For those with terminal illness this is now possible through palliative care which includes modern pain management and people trained to help the terminally ill die with dignity.

Ethically, there is a significant difference between actively/assisting in killing another person and withdrawing (or with-holding) treatment so that the person dies as a result of their illness.

In both situations the intent of the action is critical. In forms of euthanasia, the intent is to relieve suffering by killing. By contrast, when treatment is futile and is stopped or withheld, palliative care given by skilled professionals who address the pain and suffering caused by terminal illness, provides the best means to respond compassionately to terminal illness and suffering. The intention here is to address the many needs of the suffering person and their family, and to enable a dignified pain-free death. Another ethical consideration is that health care professionals are trained and trusted to promote health and well being and provide appropriate treatment for the living and dying. They are trusted not to cause death.

Much of this current debate centres on a patient’s right to choose when and how to die in the face of severe suffering in a terminal illness. But the right to choose does not take place in a vacuum – no-one is completely free, we are embedded in family and society involving critical relationships that go beyond the care of those who are dying. Our personal freedom is always held alongside the rights of others, and from a Christian perspective, our personal rights have to be considered alongside our responsibilities to others that reflect our love of God as indicated in the command to love both God and neighbour (Mark 12:28-32). The importance of purpose or intent to end life along with our responsibility to others also resonates with traditional Maori customary practices where physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia have no equivalent in language or practice.

Beyond the desire to relieve individual suffering there are societal pressures which lead us to reflect on the reasons for this debate at this time. We recognise the escalating costs of health care (particularly in the last year of life) and ask whether this debate is convenient in the light of socio-economic concerns. This then raises the issue of justice where the Christian response is to ensure that people who are weak and vulnerable receive compassionate care. As international experience has shown, voluntary euthanasia quickly becomes non-voluntary euthanasia for conditions other than terminal illness (as in the Netherlands). The rights of vulnerable individuals are ignored when decisions are made without their input or consent, based on their perceived lack of value to, or burden on, society.

In light of this, the ICBC would not support legislation for decriminalising or legalising physician-assisted suicide or active euthanasia. Instead, we advocate recognising that death is a natural part of life, and that it is extremely important for skilled palliative care to be made freely available to all of those who suffer to enable them to die “well”.

[snazzy-archive]

Every year, particularly in [...]]]> A group of New Zealanders are calling authorities to account for a genocidal campaign.

The Following article is written by Mike Sullivan of Whangarei, the father of a three year old girl with Down Syndrome. The article is  a direct republication from the MercatorNet.com website under their Creative Commons copyright agreement.

Every year, particularly in Asia, thousands of abortions of unborn girls are carried out, solely because they are girls. This is the sad phenomenon known as “gendercide”, a term that, taking into account other forms of violence against women, even the liberal Economist magazine says is no exaggeration.

The term echoes the word “genocide”, familiar to all of us as a description of Nazi campaign to eliminate the Jews, and of more recent murderous racial or ethnic cleansing campaigns such as that carried out in Rwanda in 1994.

In recent decades another campaign against a particular group of people has gathered momentum. These are unborn children around the world who have Down syndrome, a genetic disorder which gives the person certain well-known features, such as a rounder face and almond-shaped eyes, and involves varying degrees of intellectual and sometimes physical disability.

Government initiated and funded programmes of pre-natal genetic testing to detect this condition have resulted in around 90 per cent of these babies in some western countries having their lives terminated in utero. Surely, it is no exaggeration to see this pattern as a form of genocide — “geneticide”, perhaps.

New Zealand is no exception to the “rule” that says babies with this disorder should not be born. It is not a rule written in so many words, but the words that are used in official and research documents clearly have that intent, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that mothers with an unborn child diagnosed with Down syndrome are automatically offered an abortion.

When the national antenatal screening programme for Down syndrome was relaunched in this country with “quality improvements” in February, a number of people decided it was time to challenge the government on the validity of its commitment to screening.

Right to Life NZ lodged a formal complaint with the Prime Minister that the programme for Down syndrome is an instrument of genocide, a crime against humanity. The Health Minister wrote back blandly advising that the government has no plans to cease the screening programme.

A group of twelve concerned parents and Right to Life NZ have since approached the Director of Human Rights Proceedings, asking him to take our case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. We believe that antenatal screening for Down syndrome violates not only New Zealand human rights law and abortion law, but also the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Article 2 of the UN Convention defines genocide as any one of a number of acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. One of these actions is “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”.

Intent is legally established through the test of foresight of particular consequences and a desire to act so that those consequences occur; it is covered under Article 30 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Although the government states that the reduction of births of people with Down syndrome is not the purpose of the programme it is clear that they had foresight that this would be a consequence, and this meets the test of intent under international law. They have proceeded to act on this basis without any attempts to mitigate a reduction in the number of births of people with Down syndrome.

Government documents confirm that the screening programme would prevent births of people with Down syndrome via selective abortion, leading to the destruction, in part, of that group through a significant reduction in the number of their births. In the Memorandum to Cabinet dated 23 October 2007, it is stated:

There is the potential for activities associated with improving the quality of antenatal screening for Down syndrome to have a negative impact on people with disabilities, including….decrease in the number of babies born with Down syndrome. International experience suggests that as a result of screening and diagnostic tests, up to 90 percent of women who receive an antenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome will choose to terminate their pregnancies.

The memorandum also says:

The purpose of screening is to provide women with information about their pregnancy to enable them to make informed choices. This information may help women to decide whether to continue with or terminate the pregnancy.

People with Down syndrome are a stable and permanent group of people and fall within the status of a protected group under the UN Convention. The UN’s Akayesa judgement, relating to genocide in Rwanda states:

The Chamber found that it was necessary, above all, to respect the intent of the drafters of the Genocide Convention which, according to the travaux préparatoires, was clearly to protect any stable and permanent group.

People with Down syndrome are also genetically linked through their commonality in having a third 21st chromosome and share the same physical characteristics. They can be defined as both an ethnic group and a racial group, both of which relate to people distinguished on the basis of common genetically linked characteristics and physical characteristics. The screening programme is based on the premise that people with Down syndrome can be distinguished by their third 21st chromosome. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group is established through the use of selective abortion.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal has also been asked to determine whether the screening programme discriminates against people with Down syndrome. Part 1A of the (New Zealand) Human

Rights Act 1993 prevents the government from discrimination on the basis of disability. This issue has recently been raised with a formal complaint to the Health and Disability Commissioner, who concluded that “the option of screening should be presented in a way that is not discriminatory towards people with Down syndrome” and found that the NSU information sheets “could be more comprehensive and accessible”. He has written to the Director-General of Health suggesting improvements to the NSU’s information resources.

We consider that the commissioner’s response supports our view that the programme is not being managed in a balanced way. This raises serious concerns for us around the discriminatory nature of the policy for the screening programme. The presence, form, presentation and management of the programme sends a clear message to people with Down syndrome that their lives are not valued and reinforces discrimination towards them, clearly breaching the Human Rights Act. Simply by targeting a group of people for genetic screening distinguishes them as being less worthy than others.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal has also been asked to consider whether the programme is lawful in terms of the Crimes Act 1961. Under that Act abortions are excused for rare and serious reasons. In relation to foetal abnormalities, an abortion may be authorised where “there is a substantial risk that the child, if born, would be so physically or mentally abnormal as to be seriously handicapped”. Down syndrome is not a serious handicap. It is internationally recognised as a mild to moderate developmental delay. Our view is that aborting an unborn child based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome is a crime under the Crimes Act 1961.

Our desire is for the New Zealand Government to promote love and respect for those with Down syndrome and for them to be treated with the same human dignity and respect afforded to their fellow citizens. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights eloquently articulates “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”. The rights of the people with Down syndrome are sanctioned in law; we are asking that these be actualised in practice.

The government should promote a culture of life by ensuring that families who have unborn children with Down syndrome receive compassion and are given all the encouragement and support needed to bring their child to birth. After the birth of their child they should be provided with the services necessary to assist them in providing for the special needs of their child.

Mike Sullivan is the father of an almost three year old girl with Down syndrome. He is a chartered professional engineer who also advocates for people with Down syndrome to be treated with the same human dignity and respect afforded to their fellow citizens. If you are interested in the proceedings and would like more information please contact Mike Sullivan at mike.b.sullivan@xtra.co.nz

To visit the MercatorNet.com website click here

Jane McEntee, manager of antenatal and newborn screening at the National Screening [...]]]> It seems obvious to me that the basis of first-trimester screening is to enable women to have an abortion within the 20-week timeframe if an abnormality is detected, since other reasons for prenatal diagnoses are left until the later stages of pregnancy.

Jane McEntee, manager of antenatal and newborn screening at the National Screening Unit, was quoted in this newspaper in February as saying that the new system "is about making sure the screening is safe and reliable and that women are fully informed around what screening means and what may follow screening and any decisions that they may need to make".

 Read on here from this article by Garth George in the NZ Herald Thursday September 16th edition

Minister of Health,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

Dear Mr Ryall

Re: Official Information Act Request – Embryonic Stem Cell Research

I wish to request under the Official Information Act a copy of the recommendations if any from the Ministry of Health to you on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on [...]]]> Hon Tony Ryall,

Minister of Health,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

Dear Mr Ryall

Re: Official Information Act Request – Embryonic Stem Cell Research

I wish to request under the Official Information Act a copy of the recommendations if any from the Ministry of Health to you on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology [ACART] to allow for the experimentation on spare embryos stored in IVF clinics in New Zealand.

In your letter of 23 June 2009 to this Society you advised that you had not made a decision on this matter. I would be grateful if you would advise if you have now made a decision in response to the above recommendation of ACART. Our Society continues to be opposed to  experimentation on human embryos.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Each year at the annual March for Life in Washington, DC the International Down Syndrome Coalition for Life joins the march and members carry large laminated photos of our precious kids.  I received the photo below from the IDSC to let me know that Chloe participated in this year’s March [...]]]> Dear NZ Right to Life,

Each year at the annual March for Life in Washington, DC the International Down Syndrome Coalition for Life joins the march and members carry large laminated photos of our precious kids.  I received the photo below from the IDSC to let me know that Chloe participated in this year’s March – the smallest voice can have the largest impact!  Please check out my site (Stop Aborting Down Syndrome Individuals Now)  http://sadsin.blogspot.com/

Blessings,

Kurt Kondrich

From the International Down syndrome Coalition for Life http://idscforlife.wordpress.com/

Investigate Magazine.

Dear Ian

The Right to Debate

In response to Judith Hill, February edition. Your correspondent propounds a hedonistic, secular and utilitarian quality of life ethic which proposes that only the fit have a right to life. This ethic is opposed to the sanctity of life ethic which respects the right [...]]]> The Editor,

Investigate Magazine.

Dear Ian

The Right to Debate

In response to Judith Hill, February edition. Your correspondent propounds a hedonistic, secular and utilitarian quality of life ethic which proposes that only the fit have a right to life. This ethic is opposed to the sanctity of life ethic which respects the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death..The society that she proposes would sadly be selfish, uncaring and unloving. The message that she is giving to those with Down syndrome is that you are not welcome in society, you have nothing to contribute and you are a burden on the taxpayer. Every child is a gift from God that comes into this world to love and be loved. There is a more serious disability than Down syndrome and that is to fail to love.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that our human rights are inalienable and universal. Being inalienable they cannot be taken away from us and being universal they are conferred on every human being. She wrongfully claims that, "the concept of the "Right to life "does not apply to the fetus, let alone a malformed fetus." This is untrue, the Crimes Act 1961, recognises the fetus as an unborn child and having a right to life. Section 182 “ killing unborn child” states that to kill an unborn child in New Zealand is a serious crime and on conviction, the person convicted may be imprisoned for a term of up to 14 years. The Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977, states in the long title that "abortions may be authorised after having full regard to the rights of the unborn child." Every unborn child including a child with Down syndrome is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of the Creators loving creation and should be accorded the respect due to the human person. Our human rights do not come from the state or from society. At conception the new human being is endowed by its Creator with human rights, the foundation of these rights is the right to life.  The unborn child is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family and deserves our respect and protection. We all have a duty to defend life and the first duty of the state is to provide effective legal protection for the right to life of every member of the human family especially the weak and the defenceless. The writer falsely claims that it is not the business of anybody else, including politicians, whether a couple decide to terminate the life of their unborn child. That is incorrect, the state has a compelling interest in protecting the lives of future citizens and therefore is obligated in justice to provide effective legal protection for unborn children.

The United States Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta, states that the classification for Down syndrome is a "mild to moderate disability." Most children with Down syndrome participate in public and private educational programs. Educators and researchers are still discovering the full educational potential of people with Down syndrome. Today people with Down syndrome live at home with their families and are active participants in the educational, social and recreational activities of their community. People with Down syndrome are valued members of their families and their communities, contributing to society in a variety of ways. Women who have an unborn child diagnosed with Down syndrome need and deserve the support and compassion of the community to accept their child as a valued and loved member of the family and community.

Every abortion is the violation of the human rights of the unborn child. Abortions are excused for rare and serious reasons. under the Crimes Act. s 187A, [1] [aa], states that an abortion may be authorised on the following ground, “That there is a substantial risk that the child, if born, would be so physically or mentally abnormal as to be seriously handicapped…”This ground relates to a pregnancy of not more that 20 weeks gestation.

It is noted that the test for that section is that the handicap is serious. As the clinical definition for Down syndrome is a mild to moderate disability it is contended that Down syndrome does not meet the threshold of being serious.It is thus our Society’s opinion that; it is unlawful for certifying consultants to authorise an abortion, or for doctors to perform an abortion for Down syndrome, on the grounds of fetal abnormality as set out in the Crimes Act 1961, s [1] [aa].

Why then is the government promoting a culture of death by sanctioning and funding the unlawful killing of unborn children with Down syndrome?

Yours faithfully

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Hon Tony Ryall,

Minister of Health,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

Dear Mr Ryall

Down Syndrome, Search and Destroy – National Programme

Our Society wishes to express its concern and opposition to the new screening programme for Down syndrome. We view the screening of unborn babies for Down syndrome with a new [...]]]> 14 December 2009

Hon Tony Ryall,

Minister of Health,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

Dear Mr Ryall

Down Syndrome, Search and Destroy – National Programme

Our Society wishes to express its concern and opposition to the new screening programme for Down syndrome. We view the screening of unborn babies for Down syndrome with a new national screening programme as a further manifestation of a culture of death. The screening is not for the benefit of the child, it is a search and destroy programme that has as its sole objective the termination of the lives of unborn children who have Down syndrome.

Human life begins at conception and at that point the newly conceived life is endowed by its Creator with inalienable human rights, the foundation right is a right to life. Our human rights are both inalienable and universal. The termination of the life of the unborn child is a violation of the human rights of the unborn child. A child does not forfeit its right to life because it has Down syndrome. The killing of an unborn child with Down syndrome is the ultimate discrimination against those with a disability.

This is eugenics which proclaims that only the perfect have a right to be born. The screening programme is a further major step on the slippery slope. The government seeks to conceal the true purpose of the programme by calling it a “quality improvement” rather than national screening programme. The government states that it is providing a service to families by giving them a choice whether to terminate the life of the child with Down syndrome or to allow the child to be born. We should be aware that this is part of a strategy of social conditioning. This important human rights issue raises several important questions.

• Has the government decided that children with Down syndrome are not valued or wanted in our community?
• Is it the government’s intention to encourage families to abort children with Down syndrome?
• This insidious option to terminate the life of the child will ultimately become a duty to kill the child before birth?
• Should we expect that with the acceptance of eugenics ultimately it may be expected that with the rationing of diminishing health resources that health care for the disabled will be restricted. 

The screening programme denies that unborn children with Down syndrome have an important contribution to make to the family and society; they should be valued, loved and respected.

The government should withdraw the screening programme and promote a culture of life by ensuring that families that have unborn children with Down syndrome receive compassion and are given all the encouragement, support needed to bring their child to birth. After the birth of their child they should be provided with the services necessary to assist them in providing for the special needs of their child.          

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary