End of Life Choice Referendum

Repeal of Euthanasia Act –a Moral imperative

October 31, 2020 by Philip Leave a Comment

Media Release 31 October 2020

Right to Life believes that the End of Life Choice Act 2019 is an unjust law that fails to protect life, violates the common good, lacks legitimacy, should not be obeyed and must be repealed.

An unjust law is a human law that is not founded on eternal law and natural law. We have a duty to obey human made laws but when they disobey God’s law they must be disobeyed and repealed.

The EOLC Act violates the moral law because it violates God’s fifth Commandment, Thou shalt not kill. Parliament has no authority to violate God’s law.

It violates Article three of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”The preamble of the Declaration advises that our right to life is inalienable and universal, being inalienable we may not have it taken from us nor may we give it up.

It violates the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1993, Article 8, “Right not to be deprived of life.”

The Euthanasia referendum also undermines the EOLC Act’s legitimacy for the following reasons:-

The “yes” vote for the referendum was 65.2 per cent. It is believed that only one in five who voted yes had actually read the Act.
Right to Life believes that many of those who voted yes were grossly misinformed. The government MPs, who were overwhelmingly in support of the new law, claimed to be neutral, but conducted a campaign of misinformation about the referendum.

A poll conducted in New Zealand between 31 October and 6 November, 2019, by Curia Marketing on behalf of Euthanasia Free New Zealand revealed the following disturbing findings on what the End of Life Choice Bill would deal with or allow to be legalised:

• 74% thought that it included turning off life support

• 70% thought it included ‘do not resuscitate’ (no CPR) requests

• 62% thought it included the stopping of medical tests, treatments and surgeries.

Why did the government refuse to address this widespread misunderstanding of the referendum?

The End of Life Choice Act is NOT about, nor does it make legal the action of turning off life support, to make a ‘do not resuscitate request (no CPR) or to stop medical treatment. All of these end of life choices are already legal, are not euthanasia and this new law does not change these actions.

The End of Life Choice Act is NOT about pain relief. It is already legal for a doctor to give a person enough medication to address their pain and make them comfortable, even if this may hasten their death as a side effect, as the doctor seeks to neither hasten or cause the death of his patient.

Right to Life invites all in the community who wish to protect the right to life of the most vulnerable to join with us in working for the repeal of the EOLC Act.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life N.Z. Inc.

Judith Collins – Christian Politician

October 6, 2020 by Admin Leave a Comment

Media Release 6th October 2020

According to Newshub Judith Collins claims that her support for decriminalising abortion and making euthanasia legal “are consistent with her Christian faith”. She has said that she is a “liberal Anglican and her views are her own.”

She is badly mistaken in believing that the violent killing of a defenceless and innocent child in the womb and the killing of the vulnerable with euthanasia are acceptable to the Christian faith. Right to Life believes that human life alone is sacred because it is created in the image and likeness of God. Abortion and euthanasia are intrinsically evil and must be vigorously opposed.

Abortion and euthanasia are prohibited by the fifth commandment of God, “Thou shalt not kill .” Acceptance of the commandments is imperative to our Christian faith. We cannot be truly Christian if we do not accept that God has commanded us not to take innocent life.

The beliefs of Judith Collins are not consistent with the teachings of the Anglican Church. A recent media release signed by the Anglican Bishops together with other church leaders in New Zealand declared that, they believe supporting the End of Life Choice Act is unethical and dangerous because it would allow medical personnel “to actively end someone’s life or to assist them to commit suicide.”

It is commendable that Judith Collins believes in God, is a Christian and tries to live according to her Christian faith. She was giving a good example by getting on her knees to pray to seek guidance in voting at the general election. New Zealand desperately needs parliamentarians who recognise that they have a duty to God to use the authority that has been given to them to legislate to protect the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death.

Abortion and euthanasia are intrinsically evil. Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

Right to Life encourages Judith Collins to recognise that her Anglican Christian faith requires her to uphold the fifth commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.”

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

Defunding threat hangs over hospices that refuse to allow Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide

September 20, 2020 by Admin Leave a Comment

Media Release Sunday 20th September 2020

Right to Life believes that the Labour led government supports defunding hospices that refuse to allow doctors to give a lethal injection to their patients, or assist in their suicide. Funding of New Zealand hospices is an important election issue and the public has a right to know the government’s policy.

Right to Life is concerned that The Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, refused to advise our Society of government policy concerning the future government funding of hospices. In our letter dated 30th June, we asked:-

In the event of the euthanasia referendum receiving majority support, would you if re-elected give an assurance that your government would not withdraw funding for palliative care to hospices if they refuse to allow euthanasia in their hospice?

The Prime Minister, as is her custom referred our letter to the Minister of Health. the Hon Chris Hipkins. The Minister also refused to answer our question and stated, “The Act does not replace palliative care or health care services more generally. There is no government position for or against the Act. “

The Prime Minister claims that we have the most accountable and transparent government we have ever seen. Why then does she refuse to disclose to our nation this life threatening policy.

Right to Life questions this claim of neutrality, the End of Life Choice Act was a private members bill, however it had overwhelming government support.

Right to Life has every justification to believe that it is government policy to withdraw government funding from hospices that refuse to allow euthanasia and the killing of patients within hospices.

Right to Life believes that the intention of the Government to compel hospices to accept that doctors could kill patients with a lethal dose or assist them to commit suicide was clearly indicated in the defeat of the Supplementary Order Paper 295 moved by the Hon Michael Woodhouse. This SOP sought to amend the End of Life Choice Bill by upholding the right of hospices to “conscientiously object to including euthanasia”. It was defeated by 68 to 52. This important amendment was opposed by the Prime Minister and 33 Labour MPs, nine NZ First MPs, eight Green MPs and 15 National MPs, Jami-Lee Ross and Act’s David Seymour.

Hospice NZ had sought an urgent hearing in May in the High Court in Wellington to ask three questions. One was whether New Zealand’s proposed euthanasia law, the subject of a referendum, would have the effect of defeating the conscience right of hospices to protect their patients by prohibiting the killing of patients under the End of Life Choice Bill.

Justice Mallon in his judgement supported the right of hospices to prohibit euthanasia, however there was nothing to prevent the government authority from withholding health-care funding if a hospice refused to allow euthanasia.

The Attorney General submitted to the court [131] that if a DHB determined the most efficient way to fund assisted dying services in its area was to fund a provider who is willing to provide both palliative care and assisted dying services, it must be entitled to do so. Such a decision would not be to discriminate against those holding a conscientious objection. Rather, it would be one of effective allocation of funding to service providers in accordance with the statutory requirement on a DHB that it “seek the optimum arrangement for the most effective and efficient delivery of health services in order to meet local, regional and national needs”.

Euthanasia is not health care, it is about terminating the life of a vulnerable patient. It is diametrically opposed to the objective of palliative care, to neither hasten nor postpone death.There are 33 hospices in New Zealand providing palliative care for those seriously ill or in a terminal condition. Government funding accounts for 60 percent of the funding required to maintain hospices.

Right to Life’s requests that citizens vote no to the euthanasia referendum to protect the vulnerable in our community and to protect our hospices who are providing world class palliative care.

Ken Orr,

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

Authorised by Paul Ives, 22C McBrattneys Rd, Dallington, Christchurch 8061