On Tuesday night’s Close Up programme Dr John Pollock, who is terminally ill, claimed many doctors are already practising euthanasia.

"It’s called pain control or anxiety control, but the reality is many of the doctors who do this are deliberately shortening the lifespan of the patient, quite rightly," claimed Pollock.

But on Breakfast today, Professor Martin Connolly from North Shore Hospital’s geriatric unit, said he has never known of it.

"Clearly there has to be a distinction made between active euthanasia – that is, bringing a patient’s life to an end on purpose… and a person deciding not to have active treatment because they believe that treatment would be futile. But that is not the same as active euthanasia," Connolly told Pippa Wetzell

Continue reading this article which links directly with the TVNZ Website

This is more than just an idea discussed around a seminar table. Already the government-run medical system in Britain is restricting what medications or treatments it will authorize for the elderly. Moreover, it seems almost certain that similar attempts to contain runaway costs will lead to similar policies when American medical care is taken over by the government.

Make no mistake about it, letting old people die is a lot cheaper than spending the kind of money required to keep them alive and well. If a government-run medical system is going to save any serious amount of money, it is almost certain to do so by sacrificing the elderly.

There was a time — fortunately, now long past — when some desperately poor societies had to abandon old people to their fate, because there was just not enough margin for everyone to survive. Sometimes the elderly themselves would simply go off from their family and community to face their fate alone.
But is that where we are today?

Talk about “a duty to die” made me think back to my early childhood in the South, during the Great Depression of the 1930s. One day, I was told that an older lady — a relative of ours — was going to come and stay with us for a while, and I was told how to be polite and considerate towards her.
She was called “Aunt Nance Ann,” but I don’t know what her official name was or what her actual biological relationship to us was. Aunt Nance Ann had no home of her own. But she moved around from relative to relative, not spending enough time in any one home to be a real burden.
At that time, we didn’t have things like electricity or central heating or hot running water. But we had a roof over our heads and food on the table — and Aunt Nance Ann was welcome to both.
Poor as we were, I never heard anybody say, or even intimate, that Aunt Nance Ann had “a duty to die.”
I only began to hear that kind of talk decades later, from highly educated people in an affluent age, when even most families living below the official poverty level owned a car or truck and had air-conditioning.
It is today, in an age when homes have flat-panelled TVs, and most families eat in restaurants regularly or have pizzas and other meals delivered to their homes, that the elites — rather than the masses — have begun talking about “a duty to die.”
Back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann, nobody in our family had ever gone to college. Indeed, none had gone beyond elementary school. Apparently you need a lot of expensive education, sometimes including courses on ethics, before you can start talking about “a duty to die.”
Many years later, while going through a divorce, I told a friend that I was considering contesting child custody. She immediately urged me not to do it. Why? Because raising a child would interfere with my career.
But my son didn’t have a career. He was just a child who needed someone who understood him. I ended up with custody of my son and, although he was not a demanding child, raising him could not help impeding my career a little. But do you just abandon a child when it is inconvenient to raise him?

The lady who gave me this advice had a degree from the Harvard Law School. She had more years of education than my whole family had, back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann.
Much of what is taught in our schools and colleges today seeks to break down traditional values, and replace them with more fancy and fashionable notions, of which “a duty to die” is just one.
These efforts at changing values used to be called “values clarification,” though the name has had to be changed repeatedly over the years, as more and more parents caught on to what was going on and objected. The values that supposedly needed “clarification” had been clear enough to last for generations and nobody asked the schools and colleges for this “clarification.”
Nor are we better people because of it.

A “Duty to Die”?
By Thomas Sowell

About The Author

Thomas Sowell graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University (1958) and went on to receive his master’s in economics from Columbia University (1959) and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago (1968). He is the author of 28 books including his most recent, Intellectuals and Society. Currently he is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

Cathy Ludlum of Manchester, Connecticut, has a neuromuscular condition called spinal muscular atrophy and has been in a wheelchair since she was a child. She and other advocates for people with disabilities are fighting against an effort to allow doctors to help terminally ill patients end their lives.

Cathy Ludlum says she has a great life, but since childhood she’s been aware not everyone thinks so.
She remembers being 5, sitting in her wheelchair as people in the supermarket looked at her and shook their heads. She wondered how she could tell them she was not to be pitied.
Years later, in the hospital, Ludlum overheard the staff talking about her, assuming she led a tragic life in an institution, even though the medical chart said otherwise — she lived on her own and ran a consulting business despite a neuromuscular disease that took away her ability to move.
“People like me are at enormous risk when we’re in the hospital or otherwise disempowered,” Ludlum said.

Read further by following this link to the Harford Courant (US)

See also  Recommendation to screen more babies on the TVNZ website

Margaret’s life is important she is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of God’s loving creation. The taking of one’s life is contrary to the moral law. Our life is a gift from God. We are but stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us.

The decision to kill oneself, is not a rational decision. She has been assessed by psychiatrists as being lucid, but was she also assessed as being severely depressed and if so, why is she not being treated for this condition?

The management of St John of God Care claim that they have complied with their legal obligations. Otago University’s Professor John Dawson, an expert in mental health law said that the Bill of Rights Act recognised a person’s right to refuse treatment. “To force food on someone is actually an assault on them.” The Chief Executive Officer, Ralph La Salle of St John of God Care, stated, “We cannot force Mrs Page to eat. Under the Bill of Rights Act she has the right and is asserting her right to refuse treatment, which includes the provision of food and water.” These statements are challenged. It is morally and legally acceptable to refuse medical treatment that is burdensome or futile. Food and hydration are not medical treatment but the necessities of life. It is a great injustice and a violation of human rights to withhold food and hydration from any person on the grounds that it is medical treatment.

Dr Tricia Briscoe, chairman of the ethics committee of the New Zealand Medical Association stated that Mrs Page’s actions were not the responsibility of doctors. A doctor was responsible for alleviating a patient’s suffering, not to ward off death. Even though doctors could not assist in suicide, they could give painkillers that hasten death. Right to Life contends that doctors have a responsibility of care, especially for the weak and vulnerable. The first principle of medical practice is to do no harm. It is contended that the first duty of a doctor is to protect the life of his patient. Mrs Page’s distraught husband says his wife’s life will now end in a final irony – the professionals who are caring for her are now involved in what amounts to assisted suicide.

Auckland criminal lawyer, Shane Tait, has stated that doctors could intervene to save Mrs Page’s life. If they did so, a conviction for assault was unlikely to be successful. The Crimes Act, Section 41, states; everyone is justified in using reasonable force to prevent suicide. Right to Life asks when will someone in authority intervene to save the life of Margaret Page?

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Re: Dr Philip Nitschke [Dr Death] – Booking Ferndale House.

Right to Life is a national pro – life organisation that has members in Auckland. Our Society supports the right to life of every person from conception to natural death.

It is disappointing that your management allowed the notorious Dr Nitschke [Dr Death] to use Ferndale House in July to conduct a public workshop promoting suicide. It is presumed that you were not aware that it was his intention to launch a controversial drug testing kit for the lethal barbiturate drug Nembutal.

This drug is a Class C prohibited drug. It is unlawful for any person, unless one is a veterinary surgeon, to purchase, import or have in ones possession this drug. He continues to encourage persons to commit a crime by travelling to Mexico to purchase the drug and then unlawfully smuggle it through Customs into New Zealand. Section 159 of the Crimes Act states that it is a criminal offence to incite, counsel or assist in suicide. It is contended that he is also in violation of this law.

Dr Nitschke promotes suicide, self murder as a human right even for depressed teenagers he has a right to free speech; he has no right to use that freedom to undermine the common good by promoting a culture of death.

He conducts public meetings around the world, He was recently prohibited by the Singaporean government from entering Singapore to conduct meetings promoting suicide. In other countries he has frequently had venues withdrawn when it has been known what his objectives are. There were two venues in New Zealand that recently withdrew bookings for public meetings for Dr Nitschke. He was prominent in having the law changed in the Northern Territory of Australia to allow for assisted suicide. He was personally responsible for assisting in the suicide of four persons in that Territory before the law was changed by the Federal government.

Our Society is disappointed that the Auckland City Council would provide a venue to a person who is endeavouring to undermine the law. Right to Life requests that in the interest of the community and for the protection of vulnerable persons that you withhold future reservations from Dr Nitschke for the use of your facilities for the conduct of public meetings promoting suicide, that could be in contravention of the law of New Zealand. We would be grateful if you would kindly advise our Society of your decision in this matter.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Film & Literature Board of Review,

PO Box 805,

Wellington.

Dear Mr Davie

Re; Film & Literature Board Of Review: “Do It Yourself With Betty”

The following submission is presented in support of our Society’s request for a review of the classification of unrestricted for the video, Do It Yourself With Betty.

It is contended that the video is in breach of the Films, Videos and Publications Act 1993 [the Act] .

This video is on the web site of Exit International which is hosted in New Zealand. Information on the above web site states that this video is one of two instructional films on suicide and are the first of 16 instructional videos to be exhibited on the Exit International web site. This web site was previously hosted by an Australian internet provider. In 2005 the Australian Federal government passed the Suicide Material Offences Act to prevent the use of the Internet, fax or telephone to encourage suicide. Convictions under this Act can result in a fine of up to $90,000, for an individual and up to $370,000 for an organisation. Its specific objective was to restrict Dr Nitschke from promoting suicide.

Government Suicide Prevention Action Plan

The government in March last year launched its five year Suicide Prevention Action Plan with the objective of saving lives and reducing New Zealand’s disturbingly high suicide rate.

There are approximately 500 suicides (self murders) reported each year in New Zealand. It is believed that there are many suicides that are not reported. Maori men and those living in deprived communities are most at risk. In 2006, 5400 people were treated at hospitals after intentionally harming themselves. If these people had the opportunity of viewing this video it may be assumed that many of them would have successfully committed suicide. It is incongruous for the government to have introduced a plan to reduce suicide in our community while at the same time this video advocating suicide is available on the internet in New Zealand. Our Society believes that the Review Board should support the government’s Action Plan by banning the video.

Human Rights Issue

This is an important human rights issue. Right to Life New Zealand is a national incorporated Society with an estimated 4,500 members. We are a Society that believes that it is self evident that all human beings are endowed at conception by their Creator with inalienable human rights. The foundation of our human rights is our right to life. We are opposed to any attack on our right to life. We are therefore opposed to suicide, self murder which is an attack on our dignity as human persons and on our right to life. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states in the preamble;

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”

It is important to note that the United Nations Declaration recognises that our human rights including our right to life are inalienable, being inalienable they may not be taken away from us, nor may we give them up. There is no human right for a person to kill themselves. Our lives are not our own but belong to our Creator. We are therefore but stewards of our life and have no right to destroy it.

It is mentioned that the web site for Exit International states;

“Dr Philip Nitschke is a tireless fighter for human rights. He uses his intelligence combined with his resourcefulness to continue to fight for the right to choose”

It is imperative that we recognise that Nr Nitschke is not promoting human rights but a culture of death under the guise of human rights. This is a serious threat to the lives of every citizen and to future generations. It would be the greatest folly for the Board of Review to provide encouragement to Dr Nitschke by permitting him to continue displaying this video.

Duty to Protect Life

It is the first duty of the State to protect the lives of its citizens from conception to natural death, especially the weak and vulnerable in society. The state recognises that suicide is a violation of human rights and is harmful not only to the individual whose life is destroyed but also to the common good. Parliament has expressed its opposition to suicide by enacting legislation in the Crimes Act section 179 to make it a serious crime to counsel, aid or abet in a suicide. Suicide is a terrible tragedy for the individual, the family and society. In a civilised society it is recognised that we all have a duty to promote a culture of life and oppose a culture of death. Suicide is an attack on a culture of life and promotes a culture of death. The suicide of a member of society wounds the social fabric and undermines the collective commitment to life that a healthy and viable society should have. It is contended that the Board, as an agency of the legislature has a serious duty to promote a culture of life and oppose a culture of death.

NZ Bill of Rights – Freedom of Expression

Right to Life supports the Bill of Rights 1990. The Act states that everyone has “the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.” It also states under section 5 of the Act, this freedom is subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Free speech is an important human right. As with all rights there are responsibilities. We may not use free speech in a manner that will harm another person.

. For this reason the freedom of speech is seen as being grossly and blatantly misused in this video.

Our society shares the concern of the NZ Police. The Senior Police Legal Advisor, Inspector Alistair Murray, stated in a submission on the original edition of “The Peaceful Pill” that the Police believe that the publication of the book in certain circumstances would be a potential breach of the criminal law, in particular, section 179 of the Crimes Act 1961, which makes a person liable to 14 years imprisonment if that person “incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit suicide.”

In the light of the Police Department’s submission, we believe that their concerns would also apply to the video in question.

Our Society also supports the submission of the Ministry of Health made in respect to the original edition of “The Peaceful Pill” which stated, “That it should be classified as objectionable under section 3 of the FVPC Act because if the book was made accessible to the community, it would be of interest to and read by people at risk of suicide as well as those contemplating euthanasia.” The Department noted that the term suicide was used throughout the book confusing those two subjects.

In the light of the serious concerns of the Ministry of Health and the Police which could be applied to the video, it should be banned.

Age Concern Canterbury

It is important to draw your attention to the statements made by Mr Andrew Dickerson, Canterbury’s Aged Concern previous chief executive and member of the Canterbury District Health Board. They appeared in an article in the Christchurch Press, 12 May 2008, featuring the classification of the book “The Peaceful Pill”. Mr Dickenson said that he was horrified that the book would soon be available. Despite being rated for sale to those aged over 18, he predicted depressed vulnerable young people would get their hands on it with fatal results. “My aspirations for older people are also considerably higher than a book which promotes ways to kill themselves,” These comments could well be applied to the video in question.

Youth – Suicide

New Zealand has the highest male rate of youth suicide [15 – 24] and second highest female youth suicide rate compared to other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] countries. Youth [15 – 24] have a much higher rate of hospitalisation for intentional self-harm in 2002 [186] cases per 100,000] than the total population [85.5 cases]. The New Zealand Health Strategy has identified reducing suicide and suicide attempts across all ages as a priority health objective.

Research has revealed that youth suicide is associated with depression. Our Society is deeply concerned that young vulnerable persons who are suffering from deep depression will be at increased risk of committing suicide if they have the opportunity of viewing this video.

Internet Filtering of Suicide Promotion Material

It is relevant to our appeal to note that in 2008 the Australian government commenced planning to implement a national internet filter to protect its citizens from controversial websites that promote euthanasia and suicide.

Meaning of Objectionable

Section 3 [1] For the purposes of this Act, a publication is objectionable if it… deals with matters such as violence. It is contended that the video encourages the ultimate violence against oneself that of self destruction or self murder.

It also inflicts intense emotional violence against the deceased’s family and friends. It is the view of this Society that the video is likely to be injurious to the public good and should, be classified as objectionable and banned

Section 2 [f] It is contended that the video violates this section by promoting extreme violence against oneself.

Section 3 [a] [i] It is contended that the video violates this section by dealing with serious harm.

Section 3B [a] [i] It is contended that the video violates this section by dealing with self-inflicted death. The Classification Office in its decision states; “This film does not add anything to what everyone knows, and from its tone cannot be taken seriously.” It is contended that the intention of the producers of the video is for the video to be taken seriously and to inform on how to effectively use a plastic bag for the purpose of ending ones life.

Under section 3[4], the classification Office must consider the following matters:

Section 3[4] [a] The dominant effect of the publication of the publication as a whole.

The dominant effect of the videos is to instruct in the manner of committing suicide.

The Classification Office in its decision states that, “the dominant effect the publication is likely to have on its intended audience of elderly and terminally ill persons is one of inconsequential amusement caused by the light hearted manner in which it demonstrates how to adapt an oven bag for use as a means of suicide.” Right to Life contends that it is an unwarranted assumption to conclude that the intended audience for the video is the elderly and the terminally ill. Dr Nitschke makes no such assertion and the video could be viewed by impressionable and depressed teenagers with tragic results. We believe that there is no evidence that the elderly and the terminally ill will express “inconsequential amusement caused by the light hearted manner in which it demonstrates how to adapt an oven bag for use as a means of suicide.” We strongly disagree with the Classification Office’s conclusion that the contents of the video are innocuous and is unlikely to make its unrestricted availability injurious to the public good. We believe that the public good would be protected from injury if the life of only one person was saved from suicide as the result of classifying the video as objectionable. It is an insidious ploy to promote the evil of suicide under the guise of humour with the objective of making self murder socially acceptable.

Euthanasia and suicide are being promoted by Dr Philip Nitschke as the right of those who are terminally ill. It is contended that his real agenda is to promote euthanasia and suicide as being a human right for persons of any age who are not terminally ill but have decided that life is not worth living.

I wish to refer you to an article entitled “Outrage as Healthy Woman Helped to Die” which appeared in the Sunday Star Times on Sunday 3 February 2008. A New Zealand woman who was not terminally ill killed herself with lethal Nembutal that she had smuggled home from Mexico after seeking advice from Dr Philip Nitschke. A friend of the woman had said that the 68 year old woman who had committed suicide was active but suffered severe depression. Dr Nitschke was interviewed for the article and was unrepentant over his role in the woman’s death, saying it was “arrogant and paternalistic” to review someone else’s decision about when to die. You are not in her shoes. She obviously made an assessment and decided her life was not worth living any more. You can not simply look at the medical records”.

It is contended that the real agenda of the euthanasia movement is to promote euthanasia as a right to choose for any person of any age who believes that their life is not worth living. The website of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society New Zealand states on its home page;

“The Voluntary Euthanasia Society of New Zealand has as its object a change to the law to allow terminally ill patients or those whose quality of life has diminished to an unacceptable extent, the right to a peaceful death with dignity at a time of their choosing.” [Emphasis added]

.

Section 3[4] [c] The character of the publication, including any merit, value or importance it has in relation to literary, artistic, social, cultural, educational, scientific or other matters.

We contend that the video is totally without merit, value or importance.

We believe that it is morally reprehensible to be offering the terminally ill and the elderly the option of suicide as an acceptable end of life choice. A caring and compassionate society will provide appropriate palliative care which successfully provides effective pain relief. New Zealand is very fortunate in having excellent palliative care facilities. Members of the medical profession involved in providing this service are totally opposed to suicide as a choice. The NZ Medical Council has vehemently opposed the release of Dr Nischke’s book “The Peaceful Pill” for sale and has strongly criticised the Exit International seminars he has held in NZ – teaching people how to unlawfully bring banned drugs into NZ and commit suicide.

Section 3 [4] [e] The purpose for which the publication is intended to be used.

.Suicide, self murder, is not a crime in New Zealand. However, the Crimes Act, section 179 makes it abundantly clear that aiding and abetting suicide is a crime against the person. There have been two Death with Dignity Bills brought to Parliament in recent years. The first was the Private Members Bill of Michael Laws of 1995 that was defeated by 61 to 29 at its first reading. The second Private Members Bill was brought to Parliament in 2003 and was defeated at its first reading 60 to 57. It is clear from these two vigorous Parliamentary debates that there is majority opposition to having Parliament even consider legislation to legalise assisted suicide and the killing of patients by their doctors.

Suicide is a tragedy for the person who kills themselves, a great tragedy for the family of the deceased and a tragedy for the community. Our society, our human family has a social contract that we respect our own life and the lives of others in the community. Suicide is a violation of that important social contract. The acceptance of suicide by society as being socially acceptable would ultimately result in the destruction of society.

It is contended that the video promotes and supports violence. Self murder is the ultimate in violence against oneself. It also inflicts intense emotional violence against the deceased’s family and friends. It is the view of this Society that the video is likely to be injurious to the public good and should, be classified as objectionable and banned

It was claimed by those entrusted with her care that the withdrawal of food and hydration was the withdrawal of burdensome medical treatment. Food and hydration are not medical treatment but the necessities of life. Pope John Paul II stated that food and hydration even when administered through medical assistance “remains a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act.”

If Eluana Englaro , an innocent person, can be condemned to death, every person whose life is considered of insufficient quality by a guardian or court will be in danger of execution by the withdrawal of basic and ordinary care. Eleuana was deemed to be in a persistent vegetative state. Human beings are not vegetables they are created in the image and likeness of God and always retain their human dignity which should be respected and protected.

Eluana’s murder is a moral catastrophe; a victory for a culture of death, the consequences of which will have international consequences. The consequences will equal or exceed the abortion holocaust unleashed on the world by the 1973, Roe v Wade decision of the American Supreme Court.

A similar tragedy could be enacted in New Zealand as there is no legal protection prohibiting the removal of food and hydration from the disabled. Right to Life is committed to continue promoting a private members bill to prohibit the withdrawal of this basic care.

The decision was made on 24 November 2008. The decision followed a written complaint against the video by Right to Life New Zealand made on 26 June 2008 and byThe Society for the Protection of Community Standards.

The video was titled “The Peaceful Pill: Single Shot.” The video described how to manufacture the drug Nembutal a Class C drug contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The Censor stated in his judgment; “that the film promotes and encourages criminal acts by making them seem a completely normal and positive part of everyday life.” The judgment went on to say; “Any use of the film as a basis on which to manufacture a drug said to induce a peaceful death is more likely to cause a violent injury or death by accident.”

This historic decision of the Chief Censor is a victory for a culture of life and is the first time in New Zealand that a complaint has been upheld against Dr Philip Nitschke for promoting suicide through film or literature.

Right to Life is disappointed that the Chief Censor has rejected a similar complaint against the suicide video, “Doing it with Betty.” The decision states that the film is classified as “unrestricted” This video demonstrates how a person may commit suicide with a plastic bag. The Censor in his decision stated that; “The innocuous nature of this film’s content is unlikely to make its unrestricted availability injurious to the public good.”

It is worthy of note that the video was forcibly removed in August by You Tube because of “content violation”.

Right to Life challenges this decision and will seek permission to have the decision reviewed by the Classification Review Office. It is understood that Dr Nitschke proposes to produce a further 14 suicide promotional videos. It is the intention of Right to Life to challenge these videos at the appropriate time by presenting a written complaint with the Office of Film and Literature Classification seeking to have them banned as “objectionable.”

The videos promote suicide as an option for the seriously ill and elderly. The videos promote a culture of death, attack our inalienable right to life and undermines the common good. It should be noted that Dr Nitschke has previously stated, that the knowledge he provides should be readily available to “anyone who wants it including the depressed the elderly bereaved, and the troubled teen.” Dr Nitschke seeks to promote suicide as a human right and a right to choose. Right to Life is committed to opposing the culture of death promoted by Dr Nitschke which is a threat to our whole community.

Our Society is committed to promoting a culture of life that upholds the right to life of every person from conception to natural death.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

The Right to die they said, was a human right

Next it was those who were dying, did not want to but were anyway.

Now one of Britain’s "leading" "moral" philosophers is saying that the demented have a moral duty to die.

Welcome to the brave new world.