Right to Life challenges Professor Jan Bernheim (pictured), on his surprising and alarming advice,
“If you are going to legalise euthanasia in New Zealand don’t make it too complicated. There is a tendency to build in many, many safeguards-redundant safeguards”.
Right to Life asks why is this? Is it because safeguards provide too much protection for patients, or is it because doctors know what is best for the patient and we should trust doctors to decide when it is expedient to provide a lethal injection to the patient? Or is because doctors are busy professionals and really don’t have the time to seek a second opinion or to bother with paper work and the tedious responsibility to report that they have killed a patient or assisted in their suicide?
Right to Life encourages concerned persons to attend his last two public talks in New Zealand. For his last two engagements, one in Christchurch and the other in Auckland see dates and locations at end of this post
This professor claims that New Zealand should follow the Belgian model of euthanasia. There are two studies from the Flanders region of Belgium that display a rampant disregard for the law. In 2007, a study found that 32 percent of assisted deaths were performed without any request and that 47 percent of all assisted deaths were not reported. A further study in 2013 revealed that two percent of all deaths were hastened without an explicit request and that 40 percent of hastened deaths were not reported. There has been in Belgium a 500 percent increase in euthanasia in 10 years. The safeguards that Belgium boasts are clearly not working to protect patients, only doctors. Why then does the Professor believe that there are too many safeguards?
Right to Life asks Professor Bernheim to advise us what safeguards we should avoid if legislating for the killing of patients. Why is the media silent?