Dear Mr Mallard

Re: Euthanasia Legislation

I wish to draw to your attention important information on the issue of euthanasia. On 25 January, in Strasbourg, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a non-binding resolution stating:

“Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.”

The purpose of the resolution, entitled “Protecting human rights and dignity by taking into account previously expressed wishes of patients”, defines the principles that should govern the practice of “living wills” or “advance directives” in the 47 States of the Council of Europe.

The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) welcomed the adoption of the PACE resolution. “This Resolution is a major victory for the protection of life and dignity,” said ECLJ Director  Grégor  Puppinck.

Puppinck  noted that because “living wills” or “advance directives” are open to abuses, and are a “backdoor” for introducing euthanasia or assisted suicide into legislation, PACE’s resolution was necessary.

The resolution is comprised of a list of principles already elaborated in three documents previously adopted in the Council of Europe, including the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention), which legally binds the majority of member States. Another positive principle introduced by the Italian MP Mr Luca Volontè, states “in case of doubt, the decision must always be pro-life and in favour of the prolongation of life.”

Last year, on January 20th 2011, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a ruling (Haas versus Switzerland) that while there is a “human right” to suicide, the state has no obligation to provide citizens with the means to commit suicide.

Puppinck noted that although not legally binding on member states, the PACE resolution would nevertheless have a positive effect.  “It should have a direct impact on the upcoming judgment of the European Court in the case Koch v. Germany concerning the ban of assisted suicide in Germany,” he said.

This important development at the PACE is further evidence that the international community is opposed to removing protection for the right to life of those most vulnerable in our society.

The Labour Party has a long and distinguished history of protecting life. Right to Life believes that legislation allowing for doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide would be dangerous and unwise public policy and contrary to the best traditions of the Labour Party.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary 

STRASBOURG, January 26, 2012  – Yesterday, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a non-binding resolution stating: “Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.”

The purpose of the resolution, entitled “Protecting human rights and dignity by taking into account previously expressed wishes of patients”, defines the principles that should govern the practice of “living wills” or “advance directives” in the 47 States of the Council of Europe.

The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) welcomed the adoption of the PACE resolution. “This Resolution is a major victory for the protection of life and dignity,” said ECLJ Director Grégor Puppinck.

Puppinck noted that because “living wills” or “advance directives” are open to abuses, and are a “backdoor” for introducing euthanasia or assisted suicide into legislation, PACE’s resolution was necessary.

The resolution is comprised of a list of principles already elaborated in three documents previously adopted in the Council of Europe, including the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention), which legally binds the majority of member States.

Another positive principle introduced by the Italian MP Mr Luca Volontè, states “in case of doubt, the decision must always be pro-life and in favour of the prolongation of life.”

Last year, on January 20th 2011, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a ruling (Haas versus Switzerland) that while there is a “human right” to suicide, the state has no obligation to provide citizens with the means to commit suicide.

Puppinck noted that although not legally binding on member states, the PACE resolution would nevertheless have a positive effect.  “It should have a direct impact on the upcoming judgment of the European Court in the case Koch v. Germany concerning the ban of assisted suicide in Germany,” he said.

the Commission excluded anyone who objected to legalising assisted suicide and the report “singularly failed “ to provide evidence that vulnerable people would be protected under the new proposals. James Newcome, Bishop of Carlisle and spokesperson on health care topics for the Church of England

The stated aim of the Commission was to ”investigate the circumstances under which it should be possible for people to be assisted to die.” The Commission sat for 12 months, received submissions and visited overseas jurisdictions where doctors were permitted to assist in the suicide of their patients. The Commission was instituted under the auspices of the assisted suicide advocacy group “Dignity in Dying” and was wholly funded by Sir Terry Pratchett, an author who in 2011, produced and starred in a documentary promoting assisted suicide named “Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die.”

The Commission concluded that the current legal status of assisted suicide is inadequate and incoherent and that assisted suicide should be made legal for persons over the age of 18, who are mentally competent, who have been diagnosed as being terminally ill, who are expected to die within 12 months and who have made a voluntary decision to be assisted in their suicide.

The Commission’s report has been rejected by the Right Reverend James Newcome, Bishop of Carlisle and spokesperson on health care topics for the Church of England. He said the Commission excluded anyone who objected to legalising assisted suicide and the report “singularly failed “ to provide evidence that vulnerable people would be protected under the new proposals.

“Put simply the most effective safeguard against abuse is to leave the law as it is.” The Catholic Church upholds the dignity and inalienable right to life of every person from conception to natural death. It is the constant teaching of the Church that compassion should be extended to the terminally ill and to the aged and disabled. It is totally opposed to assisted killing.

The report has been dismissed as biased and seriously flawed by pro-life organisations. Dr Saunders, director of  Care Not Killing, said “these recommendations if implemented will place vulnerable people under increased pressure to end their lives so as not to be a burden on others. The right to die can so easily become the duty to die. ”Bernadette Smyth, director of Belfast’s Precious Life, said the report is another attack on the dignity of the weak and vulnerable, adding that the situation must never arise where the terminally-ill, disabled, or the elderly feel pressured by society to end their lives. This is part of a culture of death that is attempting to change attitudes in society, to the position where killing the weak and vulnerable becomes normal and acceptable. Britain’s Right to Life spokesperson, Phyllis Bowman states that the Commission is naïve in accepting the claims made by the providers of euthanasia in Holland, Switzerland, Belgium and in Oregon that they had no evidence of patients being pressured or unduly influenced in opting to be killed.

The Commission’s report should be seen as promoting a culture of death, that is a threat to the life of every person. It seeks to influence public attitudes to accept that there are lives unworthy of living. The legalising of assisted suicide is but the first step in achieving their final objective of allowing doctors to kill their patients. It is cheaper to kill patients than to care for them. The Dutch government is considering providing mobile euthanasia units as there are many persons with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease who are being missed by the euthanasia laws. The mobile units would allow these patients to be “treated” in their own homes. In Holland in 2009 there were 2636 patients killed by their doctor including 400 where the doctor assisted in the patient’s suicide. There were also 500 patients who were killed by their doctor without the knowledge of the patient or their family. These figures are conservative as many cases are simply not reported.

It is expected that the British Parliament will reject this biased report. There are those in our New Zealand community who will use this discredited Commission’s report to pressure our New Zealand Parliament to allow doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide.

If we are not vigilant such action will result in the culture of death expanding from the killing of the unborn to the killing of the elderly and unwell.  The alternative to the threatening culture of death, is a culture of life which recognises that life is a gift from the Creator which respects the dignity of every person.  We must ensure that we continue to provides compassionate and loving care for the terminally ill including high quality palliative care to ensure that they truly have death with dignity.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

More on this topic

The New Year should begin with ideas for saving lives, not for killing them  (MercatorNet)

Sick people need help to live, not help to die  (The Telegraph UK)

Right to Life asserts that the flood of abortions that has occurred since the passing of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977, was never intended by those original MP’s who were involved in the introduction of that legislation. The  increasing liberalism with which laws have been interpreted in the social and health spheres in recent decades, is well known.

Attempts to restrict abortion legally did not work and through a loophole hundreds of thousands of New Zealand unborn children have died.  The talk of legally restricting euthanasia to only the most difficult cases is wrong in itself, but also foolish. If there is any slackening of our laws it Will result in a tidal wave of deaths among the elderly unwell and spread from there. Just read the article below at MercatorNet

The “slippery slope” is often derided as a logical fallacy. But when one of the leading advocacy groups for euthanasia in Belgium posts an article entitled “Euthanasie: tijd voor de volgende stap, Euthanasia, time for the next step”, it’s hard not to think that it may not be so illogical after all.

The Humanistisch-Vrijzinnige Vereniging (Humanist-Liberal Association) complains that eligibility for euthanasia is far too restrictive. At the moment, only people with unbearable suffering can be euthanased. This leaves out people in irreversible comas, people with dementia, people with irreversible brain diseases and people who are under 18. This is manifestly unfair, the HVV contends.

However, this is not just a private initiative. In November Wim Distelmans, the chairman of the official Federal Committee on Euthanasia, released an open letter to Prime Minister Elio Di Rupo asking him to re-open a national debate on euthanasia. (At the time, Di Rupo was pulling a government together (this took 589 days) but now he is officially prime minister.) He and eight colleagues, like the HVV, have asked the Belgian government to update its 2002 euthanasia law. The proposed changes include these provisions:

• At the moment, advance directives are only valid for five years. This limit should be removed.
• Doctors who oppose euthanasia should be required to refer patients to a willing colleague.
• Assisted suicide should be permitted.
• It should be permitted to euthanase people with dementia who have written a living will.
• There should be no age limit for euthanasia. (A recent opinion poll claimed that two-thirds of Belgians approve of euthansia for minors.)

To read the article and similar articles on the mercatornet.com site click here

11 December 2011

Media Release

The Greens Hidden Agenda

The election of 14 Members of Parliament from the  Greens   Party is a matter of grave concern. The electorate should be aware of the hidden agenda of the Greens Party.

In 2008 in the Victorian Parliament the Greens voted for the decriminalisation of abortion which meant that it was no longer a crime to kill an unborn child. Victoria now has the most permissive abortion law in the world. The  law  provides for abortion on demand and a woman can now demand an abortion for any reason.

The Greens in Australia support same sex marriage and same sex adoption. The Greens also support the education system teaching that homosexuality is normal.

In 2010 the Greens promoted Bills to legalise euthanasia in the New South Wales, Western Australian and Victorian Parliaments. Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Greens in Australia has said that passing euthanasia laws was a top priority.

The electorate should recognise that the Greens represent in our Parliament, a threat to the protection of the right to life of unborn children, the elderly and the ill and to the institution of marriage as exclusively between one woman and one man. The Greens Party in Germany has similar policies.

It is disappointing that the media did not challenge the Greens Party before the general election to reveal its hidden agenda. The Greens Party is a serious threat to the sanctity of life ethic and the right to life of every person from conception to natural death. It is also a threat to the sanctity of marriage.

We should recognise that the long term objective of the Greens is to reduce the world’s population, creating a world in which nature is the dominant “right” with humanity subservient to that “deity”.

The Greens captured 11.6 per cent of the votes cast in the general election.  it is believed that many voted for the Greens unaware of their hidden agenda. Right to Life calls upon the  Greens Party to   confirm their hidden agenda.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life.

The plight of patients in permanent vegetative states is becoming increasingly dire around the western world as health authorities are increasingly willing to euthanize such patients. 

Probably the highest profile and most controversial case concerned American women, Teri Schiavo, whose  life was terminated in the United States in 2005, in spite of all legal efforts of Terri’s parents to prevent it. The euthanizing of patients by  withdrawal of fluids and food for such patients has exposed the increasing threat to people in such states. Her death has opened a ‘crack in the dyke’.

This article from the New York Times concerns the  use of drugs such as Zoipeden and Ambiem  (Non-benzodiazepine sleep-inducing drugs that is used primarily to treat insomnia), to awaken patients in these states of consciousness.

The Netherlands legalised euthanasia in 2001 in cases where people are suffering unbearable pain due to illness with no hope of recovery.

A spokeswoman for The Right To Die said that the idea is a logical extension of its plan to create a clinic for patients who meet the criteria for euthanasia but whose doctors are unwilling to carry it out.

The number of reported euthanasia cases in the Netherlands rose 19% in 2010 to 3,136 . A parliamentary-appointed commission is reviewing current policy.

Right to Life asks what other ‘logical extensions’ might be being planned by the Dutch?   Perhaps a clue might by recent news that the Dutch Medical Association propose  ‘Expanding Euthanasia to “Lonely” People’

One has to wonder what sort of madness has overtaken this liberal democracy?  Perhaps  New Zealanders should be far more concerned that Prime Minister John Key has indicated he supports looking at the legislation surrounding euthanasia and that the leader of the opposition, Phil Goff seems to believe that the only way to die with dignity is euthanasia and he appears to confuse effective pain relief with euthanasia.

These are matters of great concern to any person who wishes to preserve a civil society here in NZ.

Otago Daily Times.

Dear Sir

Re 16 November 2011. Sean Davison has been feted as a guest of honour at a meeting in Dunedin by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society for assisting in the suicide of his mother. The extension of Compassion for Sean Davison and his mother is appropriate in her tragic death but the bestowal on him of the title” guest of honour” is abhorrent and  inappropriate. He  recently pleaded guilty to a serious crime against the person, a  charge of violating the Crimes Act section 179, which prohibits assisting another to commit suicide. This crime carries a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. His crime and advocacy for the right to assist in a suicide violates the sanctity of life ethic and society’s prohibition of intentional killing which is the cornerstone of law and all social relationships.   Sean was responsible for his mothers care, why did she not have the excellent free palliative care of the Otago Hospice which could have provided her with love, compassion and a pain free death with dignity? Legislation allowing doctors to kill their patients would impose an intolerable threat to the elderly and vulnerable who could believe that they were a burden on society and their family.  

Yours faithfully

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

Right to Life requests that voters vote only for candidates who are committed to upholding the sanctity of life ethic which is the most important issue facing the nation at this year’s General Election.  This ethic is the foundation stone of a civil society. It is a continuing tragedy that this fundamental issue which should be at the forefront of our nation’s concern and consideration, has been generally ignored by the electorate and by many of those seeking election to Parliament.

During the next term of office of our Parliament nearly 50,000 innocent and defenceless children in violation of their right to life, will be killed in their mother’s womb, sanctioned and funded by the government. A legal system that violates the most basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed. New Zealand is increasingly being enveloped by a culture of death with the threat of euthanasia looming ever closer. This will be a threat to the elderly the infirm and sick and ultimately for any person who is deemed to be unproductive. Are we aware of this and why is this not an issue?

It is the privilege and first duty of the State to protect the right to life of every person from conception to natural death. Justice is the only solid foundation of any State. The right to life , to inviolability, to freedom, is an indispensable part of any moral order.

Those who seek election to Parliament have a duty to promote the common good and to uphold the sanctity of life of every person from conception to natural death. Any candidate who fails to uphold these basic precepts, forfeits their right to be elected to Parliament.

Those who have the privilege to elect those who will govern our nation for the next three years have a duty to elect only those who have a commitment to upholding the sanctity of life of every person from conception to natural death.

The Catholic Church upholds the natural law and the dignity of each person. It teaches that abortion – the killing of an unborn child; embryonic stem cell research – which entails the destruction of a human being and euthanasia – the killing of the terminally ill and assisted suicide are intrinsically evil. The Church in defence of the dignity of the human person teaches that Catholic voters should not vote for a candidate who takes a position in favour of an intrinsic evil such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research or euthanasia.

The right to life, the most basic and fundamental right that is the foundation of all our other human rights should be at the forefront of the manifestoes of all political parties. It is disappointing that the Labour, National and Greens Parties do not have policies that uphold the right to life of unborn children. The Greens Party has a number of commendable environmental and social policies that promote the common good but, it is the view of Right to Life that the Greens Party in Parliament presents a growing threat to the right to life of our unborn children and to the upholding of marriage as exclusively for one man and one woman.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

The Prime Minister has a duty to protect the common good and he should therefore prohibit any member of the government, bringing a private member’s Bill on euthanasia to Parliament. The first duty of good government is to protect the right to life of every person from conception to natural death and not to oversee their death and destruction. His advocacy of euthanasia is a threat to our whole community, especially the vulnerable, the sick and the elderly.

The Prime Minister has a duty to uphold the Crimes Act which prohibits as a serious crime under section 158, the taking of the life of another person. This is a crime which is punishable with a sentence of up to life imprisonment. The Crimes Act also prohibits under section 179, any person inciting, counselling, or assisting in the suicide of another person. This is a crime which may be punished with imprisonment for up to 14 years.

It would be unwise and dangerous public policy for Parliament to consider legislation, that would provide for doctors to kill their patients or to assist in their suicide. What dignity is there in being killed by your doctor? Euthanasia is totally opposed by the NZ Medical Association because it violates their medical ethics. The association supports excellent palliative care and considers that with proper palliative care there is no need for a person in a terminal condition to suffer.

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 even considering approving euthanasia for the lonely and depressed. Euthanasia is a voracious monster; a right to die will quickly become a duty to die.

Those who seek election to Parliament forfeit their right for electoral support if they do not uphold the inalienable right to life of every person. This is a non negotiable principle for a civil society. Right to Life requests that the Prime Minister upholds the common good and urgently and publicly withdraws his support for euthanasia. The Prime Minister is the sitting member for Helensville. In the event that he refuses to withdraw his support, Right to Life requests that voters in his electorate refuse to vote for his re-election to Parliament.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life,