In response to all of the below letters, Right to Life looks forward to the assurance of Stuff that we will be seeing cartoons which balance the views of this cartoonist who mocks religion and respect for life in future. We don’t however expect such a cartoon to appear in any of the the Stuff newspapers because we don’t believe that this company employs contributors who do not subscribe to the ruling left wing paradigm.
Subject: Complaint on euthanasia cartoon
29 November 2019
Mrs Mary Major,
Executive Director,
Media Council.
Dear Mary,
I wish to lay a complaint against The Press, the Dominion Post, the Waikato Times, the Manawatu Standard, the Nelson Mail and the Taranaki Daily News. My complaint is that they published a cartoon in the above newspapers on 16th November. To assist you, I have included the relevant correspondence and attached the cartoon. A letter similar to that sent to the Press was sent to the other five newspapers.
In my opinion, the cartoon breached the Media Council’s Principle 1. Accuracy, Fairness and balance.
I acknowledge that cartoons are considered opinion, though there is a requirement for a foundation of fact. The cartoon which clearly advocates support for the End of Life Choice Bill which, if passed by a referendum at the next election, will allow for doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide.
Following the passing of the EOLCB at its third reading, we are now engaged in a national debate on how we are going to care for the most vulnerable members of our community. I believe passionately in the freedom of the press and the duty of the media to be at the service of the community.
It is contended that this cartoon mocks “the anti-euthanasia movement” this is a term of derision and is not the term used by the movement. The term that we use, is pro-life movement. At the forefront of the movement is the medical profession. The cartoon is insulting to the medical profession which seeks to care and not kill. Why is the media not supporting the medical profession and disability groups which fear for their lives and others in the community, who seek to defend life? The cartoon lacks a foundation of truth by claiming that those who dare to oppose the killing of patients are using religion, scare mongering, misinformation and hysteria to promote their defence of life.
With respect, I do not agree with the editor of the Press that a foundation of fact for the cartoon was that the EOLCB was passed by Parliament. The cartoon is not about the passing of the Bill but the unjustified denigration of those opposed to euthanasia.
I consider it ironic that the cartoonist does not produce a similar cartoon featuring the pro-death lobby basing its case on scare mongering, misinformation and hysteria to promote their case for changing the law to permit doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide. The misinformation starts with the very name of the End of Life Choice Bill which disguises the fact that it is about killing. The Dutch euthanasia Act does not seek to hide the truth. The Dutch law is “Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act” An amendment to change the name of the End of Life Choice Bill to “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Act 2019″was defeated in Parliament because they knew that the mention of suicide would discourage support.
In conclusion, I believe it is false and unfair for the cartoonist to claim that the medical profession have resorted to hysteria, misinformation, scare mongering and religion to defend their ethic that it is always wrong to kill a patient. The World Medical Association at its 70th WMA General Assembly, Tbilisi, Georgia, October 2019 made the following declaration:-
“The WMA reiterates its strong commitment to the principles of medical ethics and that utmost respect has to be maintained for human life. Therefore, the WMA is firmly opposed to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
For the purpose of this declaration, euthanasia is defined as a physician deliberately administering a lethal substance or carrying out an intervention to cause the death of a patient with decision-making capacity at the patient’s own voluntary request. Physician-assisted suicide refers to cases in which, at the voluntary request of a patient with decision-making capacity, a physician deliberately enables a patient to end his or her own life by prescribing or providing medical substances with the intent to bring about death.”
The WMA represents the medical associations in 113 nations and has more than two million doctors.
Yours sincerely,
Ken Or
Original Complaint Letter to Editor of Christchurch Press
Editor,
The Press.
Dear Kamala,
Formal Complaint.
I wish to lodge a formal complaint against the cartoon that was published in The Press on 16 November 2019 and featured on page A8.
My complaint is that it breached the Media Council’s Principle 1. Accuracy, Fairness, and Balance.
It is acknowledged that cartoons are considered opinion, though there is a requirement for a foundation of fact.
It is contended that the objective of the cartoon is to discredit the case of those who are opposed to the law being changed to allow doctors to kill patients or assist in their suicide. The cartoon which advocates for euthanasia, in my view mocks those who defend life for using religion, scare mongering, misinformation and hysteria to promote the anti- euthanasia campaign.
This assertion is challenged as being false, misleading and dangerous. Is it
misinformation for:-
The World Medical Association representing medical associations in 129 countries including the New Zealand Medical Association {NZMA] to oppose euthanasia as being unethical and that doctors should care for their patients and not kill them?
Doctors to warn that the End of Life Choice Bill is but the first step and will as it has in Holland and Belgium extend to include those with depression, dementia, Alzheimer’s and other non -terminal illnesses?
The NZMA warn that euthanasia will destroy the doctor/ patient relationship based on the trust that your doctor will care for you and will not consider killing you as a treatment option?
Citizens concerned at the appalling suicide statistics in New Zealand to warn that legalising assisted suicide will undermine the government’s excellent Suicide Prevention Strategy. It would do this by approving and funding assisted suicide. It will also give the wrong message to youth that have the highest suicide rate in the OECD.
Is it hysteria :-
For Dr Sinead Donnelly and 1,500 other doctors to say in an open letter to Parliament opposing the EOLCB to say that “there is no place in New Zealand for euthanasia. “That if Parliament wants euthanasia they should leave doctors out of it and get another profession to do it and leave doctors to care for their patients?
Is it scare mongering;-
For the Disability Commissioner, Paula Tesoriero to state in her submission to the Justice Select Committee on the EOLCB that,
A.“This Bill undermines the position of disabled and vulnerable members of our community and poses significant risks to them, as individuals and as a group;
B. The proposed safeguards in the Bill are deficient, both procedurally and substantively, for both terminal and non-terminal conditions.”
For disability groups to express concern at the threat to their lives, that should the EOLCB be approved in a referendum that in a short time it will be extended to include assisted suicide for the disabled
I believe that the Press has an important role in this important public debate by ensuring that the community is provided with all the facts on the EOLCB and the consequences for our community now and for the future if this referendum is passed.
The editorial, “Listen then decide on euthanasia” which appeared on the same page encouraged readers to listen to all sides of the debate. It is therefore disappointing that there should be a cartoon that effectively proclaims that the case for upholding the duty of the state to protect the lives of every member of the community from conception to natural death should be dismissed as it is based on religion, hysteria, scare mongering and misinformation.
Yours sincerely
Ken Orr
Secretary
Subject: Complaint about cartoon Response From Kamala Hayman, Editor of Christchurch Press
Dear Ken
Thank you for your detailed email.
Your reference to the Media Council’s Principle 1 relating to accuracy, fairness and balance is interesting as this principle makes a specific point about balance on long-running issues to be judged over time. The issue of euthanasia has been covered extensively in recent years and only two days earlier, on Thursday, November 14 we published stories based on interviews with two different people opposed to euthanasia (Dr Phil Bagshaw, and Rachel Major, 17).
The Press and Stuff will be publishing many more articles (news, features and opinion pieces) on euthanasia before the referendum is held and I can assure you will be publishing a range of views, facts and figures. Saturday’s cartoon is the honestly-held views of the cartoonist and sits alongside months, if not years of active coverage on the issue, with many more months ahead.
So it was entirely reasonable to publish a cartoon by a cartoonist who suggests that the anti-euthanasia campaign is on “life support”. It does not suggest the campaign is dead.
As you correctly point out, the Media Council’s Principle 5 states that cartoons are understood to be opinion and that balance “is not essential”. A foundation of fact is expected and in this case the fact is that the majority of MPs have voted in favour of a law legalising euthanasia, as long as it is agreed to by a majority in a public referendum to be held in 2020. This is a serious blow to the anti-euthanasia campaign, though it does of course still have supporters and we will be covering those views in the pages of The Press over the coming months.
For all the reasons above, I reject any suggestion the cartoon breaches Media Council principles.
ng? mihi
Kamala Hayman
Letter from Wayne Timmo of Waikato Times in response to Euthanasia Cartoon
Hello Ken,
As indicated, Jonathan has passed your complaint on to me to respond to.
The paper stands by the cartoon as an expression of the opinion of the cartoonist and I don’t believe it has breached any of the principals of the Media Council with regard to accuracy, fairness and balance.
As you note, cartoons are considered opinion and designed to make a point in an often cutting way. As opinion, such pieces are not obligated to provide the same level of fairness or balance as a news story and may take a narrow view of the subject matter in order to concentrate on their point.
In short, a cartoon is never going to address the entire euthanasia debate from both sides and consider all the material you cite, in a single frame. It is unreasonable, especially in the context of a daily newspaper, to expect readers are drawing all of their information on this important topic from a single cartoon. There have been dozens of stories and op-ed pieces illustrating the arguments of both sides of the debate carried by the Waikato Times and other publications, not to mention online, television and radio media.
This cartoon conveyed the illustrator’s opinion, on the back of the Parliamentary vote to allow the issue to proceed to a public referendum, that this is a defeat for the anti-euthanasia side that puts the movement at death’s door. He’s making the point that, in his opinion, hysteria, religion, scare-mongering etc. are the only tools left to that side of the debate.
Whether they agree or not is up to the reader and I completely accept that you do not. However, that does not preclude the cartoonist from airing this view on the context of a cartoon – a medium which has a clear tradition of presenting opinion in the form of satire.
I’ll not get into a to-and-fro over the itemised factual points you make as they are not relevant to your complaint of a lack of accuracy and balance for the reasons noted above.
They are points used to bolster your opinion against euthanasia as proposed in the end of life bill. You are entitled to air them, just as the cartoonist is entitled to air his opinion on this issue. With the impending referendum, there will be plenty of opportunity for future debate on this issue.
Regards
Wayne Timmo
Chief News Director, Waikato
Good morning Ken,
I’m comfortable the cartoon is within the realms of satire, which allows for ridicule and exaggeration. And I’m comfortable the vast majority of readers will view it as such.
Kind regards,
Matthew Dallas
Editor
Manawatu Standard.