Viewpoint
Thursday 21st April 2005
Unbearable Pain Argument Not Borne Out as Valid Reason for Euthanasia
Lets be very clear when the next major push comes from those who wish to promote Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide in New Zealand. Lets learn from the experience of others when we hear of emotive reasons behind the "need" for the killing of those who are dying. This debate as we know is characterised by passionate debate on both sides of the fence. But as one commentator in the state of Oregon has recently commented, the implications for all of us must be studied very carefully. Looking at all the evidence and good law requires far more than emotion, passion and feeling.
Oregon's law relating to Physician Assisted Suicide (H.168), was sold to the people of that state as a way of compassionately ending the pain of those suffering from uncontrollable degrees of it and who had less than six months to live.
The facts however are that there has not been a single documented case of PAS being used for a terminally ill patient with uncontrollable pain. Each case in which a person has been killed has been based on psychological and social concerns.
A study of 129 cases from 1998 to 2002 in Oregon, reveals the following reasons that a person chose to exercise the PAS option.
44 - burden on family, friends and caregivers;
99 - decreasing participation in activities;
73 - losing control of bodily functions;
106 - losing autonomy
28 - fear of pain.
There were no citations of experiencing uncontrollable pain.
In addition, PAS has been used in Oregon to remove those who are seen as a "burden" on their families and that state, has taken the first steps leading to euthanasia.
What can we in New Zealand learn from Oregon's experience? If one thing is for sure it is that our legislators now have no excuse for using the pain argument when the facts so clearly speak for themselves.
Chris O'Brien
(President Right to Life New Zealand Inc.)
Saturday, 9 April 2005
Two Worlds Collide
The contrast between the two worlds could not have been greater this week. On one hand we have Willie Terpstra, the New Zealand woman who underwent controversial surgery for Motor Neurone Disease in China two weeks ago. On the other we have Pope John Paul 11, dying after a protracted and long suffered illness.
How can these two be compared? Well Willie Terpstra suffers from a severe and progressively debilitating neurological condition, Motor Neurone Disease. So did Pope John Paul 11 – advanced Parkinson’s Disease. The difference is that while John Paul had the resources of the world at his fingertips he chose not to undergo a treatment that Willie Terpstra seems to have no qualms about receiving.
Willie’s improvement was courtesy of an injection of several million stem cells obtained from the ground up remains of aborted unborn children. Willie’s improvements had a price. That price would not and could not have been paid by John Paul.
I have no issue with anyone seeking unorthodox treatment for medical purposes. I do have an issue however if those treatments rely on the killing of other human beings to procure them.
I also have issue with the way in which this woman has been portrayed by the New Zealand media, as a brave and fearless soul, who has become almost a celebrity over the last week or two. A New Zealand Herald’s byline, for example, on 5th April 2005 . “Willie gets royal treatment back in NZ”. No airing of the ethics of, or morality of this type of treatment. A mere acknowledgement of what the treatment involved and that it is controversial.
No mention given to the price that has been paid. Why is it that this important aspect has been totally ignored by the media?
Indeed the focus has been almost exclusively on the health improvements the woman has obtained. Fine, all of us would celebrate any person recovering from illness, even if temporarily. But is this something we should be celebrating? Can good come out of this evil? Have we entirely lost the plot?
It would seem that we are now well down that slippery slope. In fact it would almost seem to me that we have abandoned all pretence that abortion is wrong, that it involves the killing of human beings and it would now even seem that we accept that the remains of unborn children are up for sale in the market place, like some pieces of meat at the butchers.
And there perhaps we have it in a nutshell. The world would say Life, life at any price, even if it involves Death, the death of the innocents. Christ however said something quite different. He said “but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him that a huge millstone should be hung around his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depths of the sea".
The culture of Life, and the culture of Death. Choose which one to serve, for you can not serve two masters.
Chris O’Brien
(President Right to Life New Zealand Inc.)
Letter Written by Wayne, Joseph and Leah Martin of Christchurch
The Honourable Lianne Dalziel
Associate Minister of Justice
Paliament Buildings
Wellington
10 February 2004
Dear Ms Dalziel,
We understand that legislation may be brought to Parliament this year, which could have the effect of decriminalising abortion and make it a health issue.
We are deeply disturbed by what we have heard. Going back to the days of the first Labour Government, the impetus of Savage and others as they led the momentum for a welfare state was the desire to look out for the powerless. There could not be a more evident example in our society today – the unborn infant is the epitome of powerlessness. His/her only protection is that no lethal instrument is able to make its way past the protective shield of the uterus of the mother. We believe such legislation will only serve to bring a great divide in the New Zealand community, in a year which for the Government is only twelve months before the election.
The scientific community more than any other is particularly aware of almost daily discoveries as to the vital “aliveness” of the embryo from the earliest stages, in ways never fully comprehended before.
What purpose will this legislation serve? Why tear away the last defense to the humanity of the child? The violent act of abortion ends in a violent death for the unborn child, typically through use of a machine 15 times more powerful than the suction of your household vacuum cleaner. Where is the consistency in decriminalising this lethal termination of human life while at the same time giving serious consideration to repealing the s.59 provision which allows a parent to give a small spanking?
We implore you to consider again the findings of the Royal Commission of 1997 “that the unborn child as one of the weakest, the most vulnerable and most defenseless forms of humanity should receive protection.”
Yours Faithfully,
Wayne Martin, LLB
Joseph Martin
Leah Martin
Comments on an Article written by Douceline Wardle entitled
'It’s time for New Zealanders to Grow Up Over Euthanasia'
Published in the Christchurch Press on 2nd August 2003
On 2nd August Douciline Wardle wrote an opinion piece in the Press entitld. Right to Life New Zealand has serious concerns about the ideas expressed in this article which shows a disturbing lack of understanding of the wider issues concerning Euthanaisa. In this response a number of points made by Wardle in her article are commented on.
Point One
"It’s time for New Zealanders to Grow Up Over Euthanasia". What exactly does this mean?
Is Douceline Wardle trying to say that as a country we are maturing socially? Is she implying that as a society New Zealand is on an upward path of maturity? If as a measure of our maturity as a society we accept as indicators, downward spiraling social indicators, across nearly every section of society, then she is right. And again if she equates maturity to acceptance of the destruction of socially accepted norms that have stood the test of two millennia then again she may be right.
Point Two
In her opening paragraph Wardle berates MP’s who voted against Peter Brown's Euthanasia Bill. However according to her, the reason they voted against the Bill was not out of concern for the implications of this Bill. In her view they voted against the Bill because they were concerned about appearing too liberal and that doing so would cost them the next election. Interesting. An opening that denies any legitimacy to MP's concerns that this Bill may harm us as a society and writes off those who opposed it as vote catchers.
Point Three
In Douceline’s third paragraph we hear what I believe is a reason that may underly the push for legalising euthanasia. She makes the statement, …”mercifully she died in her sleep before it had become a torment for all of us.” There’s the rub. Before it had become a torment for all of US! (emphais mine)
Not for “them” that the release of euthanasia would come but for “us”.
In a society already plagued by suicide and particularly youth suicide do we promote the selling of death?
Point Four
Douceline again astounds me in her tenth paragraph. Here she has moved from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia with the stroke of a pen. “..you’ve had a good life, so you should be prepared to relinquish it….well why not.”, she says.
I can think of a dozen reasons why not.
And please, as you have done, please do not confuse two very important watershed distinctions when it comes to end of life issues.
Deliberately taking a human life is not and never can be put in the same boat as the shortening of life that may occur as the result of administering medications to meet the needs of relief from pain.
No person opposed to euthanasia advocates the unnecessary or heroic prolonging of life. To argue that persons, who oppose euthanasia, do so in a belief that it is necessary to hold onto life at all costs is quite simply rubbish.
Point Five
Ironically she argues that it is only in our ‘…self obsessed..” generation that we become determined to do so.
Is in not more of a case to the point, that it is only in this self-obsessed generation that some are seeking to introduce the killing of our unwell and elderly at all? Surely better palliative care is the answer, not euthanasia.
Point Six
It is in her closing argument concerning the validity of one of the foundation stones of Western medical ethics, the Hippocratic Oath, however that Wardle puts her finger on the crux of the issue. For here she says that, isn’t it hypocritical for doctors who oppose euthanasia to claim that euthanasia is against the second article of the Hippocratic oath;
(the physician)… "will not give a deadly drug to anybody who asks for it."
when they have already accepted that the second,
"Nor give a women an abortive remedy"
can be flouted."
Precisely. We are already into the minefield. We are already killing the weakest members of the human race. Are we now to extend this killing to the other end of life as well? If this course is taken then in the end no life will be safe. Protection of human life will become an ancient myth, assigned to the books of history, when we as a race were once immature and now of course…. we are gods.
If as Doucilline Wardle suggests, we are still barely out of our teens, I hate to think what adulthood “maturity” will bring.
Chris O'Brien
( President RtLNZ Inc)
The New Zealand Prostitution Reform Bill
Despite being in possession of compelling evidence that decriminalizing prostitution will lead to its increase, an increase in crime, and an increase in STD’s, our New Zealand MP’s have voted in mass, at least on preliminary reading, in favour of the Prostitution Reform Bill. If passed by Parliament, this Bill will bring significant liberalisation to our prostitution laws.
One would have to ask why so many MP's support this bill when its introduction would result in such dire consequences for us as a nation? To answer that question entails an understanding of the degree to which public thinking has been captured in the last decade by what might be described as those pushing for the liberalistic agenda. Arguments in favour of liberalisation are couched in terms of the need to safeguard the human rights and protect the health of prostitutes, to halt their abuse and exploitation by madams and pimps, to decrease street prostitution, and to aid the removal of the criminal element from the prostitution trade. Such argument may sound reasonable and even appeal to many, but on closer examination it can be shown that they are based on flawed reasoning. Evidence from neighbouring Australia, points to exactly the reverse outcome of that hoped for occurring when Prostitution is decriminalised or legalised.
Such promises from “those in the know” that liberalising of laws relating to societal issues will bring benefits are of course nothing new. Not long ago we heard from certain key figures in government, that lowering the drinking age to 18 would result in increased responsibility towards drinking among younger people and that the lowered drinking age would be easily enforceable. We also heard of the need to address the "rights" issue relating to the disparity that existed in the fact that you could be old enough to marry and fight for your country, yet not be old enough to drink legally in public. That at least sounds reasonable. But you didn’t have to be a brain surgeon to realize that such a change in law when introduced into a society already trying to cope with problem youth drinking would only result in progressively younger persons having access to alcohol leading to further problems. Are any of us surprised that this has eventuated?
Arguments being bandied about to justify the decriminalization of prostitution, while not directly related to the above argument are nevertheless based on a similar liberalistic mindset. It is disturbing that such arguments have been swallowed hook line and sinker by many of our parliamentarians. One wonders if the old adage that if one does not remember the past, then one is condemned to repeat it, has never been studied or even heard of.
In Australia, Victoria liberalised its Prostitution laws in the mid 1980’s, while NSW chose decriminalization in 1995. Both states have seen rates of prostitution skyrocket. Of equal concern is the rise in crime rates associated with prostitution. In an article in The Australian newspaper (2/3/00, p 5), NSW Police Commissioner, Peter Ryan, was quoted as saying there had been 40 shootings in Sydney’s south west suburbs in a three month period - all part of a “struggle between rival groups for control of the drugs and prostitution trades in parts of Sydney.”
A recent UN Save The Children report found that Victoria and NSW, which have legal brothels, are the two worst States for child prostitution (The Advertiser, 13/11/99, p 22)
Decriminalising aspects of Prostitution in these states has clearly not been accompanied by a decrease in associated crime and exploitation of women. Why should we believe that decriminalising would not have a similar impact here?
Those prostitutes who appear as spokespersons for the "trade" bare no resemblance to the growing number at the “bottom of the ladder”, badly affected by drug habits and increasingly unsafe sexual demands. As increasing number of prostitutes have taken to the streets in Australia, the price of sexual transactions has dropped. This has led to many prostitutes increasingly resorting to sex without a condom and unsafe sexual practices to survive. The myth of voluntary Prostitution is widely published while the real stories of many prostitutes are now ignored by our media.
The law is and always has been a powerful educator of the public conscience. If this legislation is passed NZ society is making a clear public statement in support of promiscuity. Prostitution is a practice that has always existed but which has never before been legitimised. In fact, might it lead, if passed, to prostitution being seen as an equally valid career choice as say is nursing? What message are we sending to our daughters other than - it’s okay to become a prostitute. Why should in not be seen as as valid a choice as any other job choice. I thought one of the most important responsibilities of government and in deed in being an adult, was to protect our young people. This appears no longer the case. Now the political correct handmaidens of choice, individual rights and non-discrimination appear to be more important.
If this legislation is passed it is ironic that it will aggravate, not improve our nations sexual health. Promiscuity will increase. How can that possibly improve our health? Socially our families, already fragmented and reeling, will be further destabilised. If it is legal surely there is nothing wrong with more and more "John’s, Joe’s or Bill’s" hopping down to the nearest brothel for a "quick-one" while their families watch TV at home. Surely if the law says it’s okay, there can’t be too much harm in it, can there? And while we are at it why not let’s not forget the influence this will have on advertising. A few good sized bill-boards (where our kids can see them) and some prime time commercial adultery advertising spots on TV, what harm can that do and well how dare those moralisers protest about the increasing number of next door brothels in the suburbs.
Tim Barnett (Labour MP for Christchurch Central) may believe that the Prostitution Reform Bill will be good for NZ and he seems to have done a pretty good job of convincing others of that too, but I for one don’t believe a bar of it.
Will we allow decriminalisation of further aspects of Prostitution to occur here? Looking at the results of the first reading of the Bill it would appear that unless there is a dramatic change in voting, it's a pretty good bet. Will New Zealand be better off? I leave you to decide on that.
If you want to help stop this Bill get on the blower to your local MP or email them by following this link
Chris O'Brien ( President RtLNZ Inc)
