Scare tactics unfair when debating end of life Bill
THE writer of the euthanasia article (ODT, 30.11.18) has blurred the lines between argument, reason, and fanciful thinking. I find it difficult to judge if the writer is thinking from a biblical perspective, a humanitarian viewpoint or from some sick neoliberal nuance.
I take exception to the inference that pain and suffering is to be suffered no matter what, and that we must bear the burden of pain and suffering at the end of life.
Using the writer’s premise, we just allow humans to suffer when there is no hope of recovery. I guess that logic also applies to animals. Fortunately, our society by law requires us to euthanise sick, injured, distressed animals, so why not allow us mortals the same intellectual choice so that we do not need to die a slow, agonising death?
I believe it is shameful for this pastor to roll out the scare tactics fashionably used by the religious fraternity that people will be pressured into death with dignity and that all sorts of social ills will come into play.
When the euthanasia law is enacted, it will have checks and balances which will allow for civilised oversight of one’s right to choose. Furthermore, we all have the freedom to create a living will which prevents any family from interfering with our wishes.
To say ‘‘euthanasia is simply a delusion that we are in control’’ is a distortion. We are actively encouraged to control our lives and make intellectual judgements on a daytoday basis. To imply living is a delusion has no logic. R. Wells
Wakari
I WAS disappointed to read such an emotive and misleading opinion as that of the Rev Richard Dawson regarding the issue of dying with dignity and the End of Life Choice Bill currently before Parliament.
He might be interested to know that such legislation is being supported around the world as a humane choice by many in the Christian Church, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey. It could help Mr Dawson come to a more reasoned opinion if he would check out authoritative sources regarding what is happening in other countries before going to print with his own ‘‘incorrect assumptions’’.
It would also be sensible if he checked the definitions of euthanasia and genocide before making such a despicable, unchristian connection between the two.
If there is to be a debate regarding this issue in our paper, let it be based on what the law, if passed, will be, an end of life CHOICE, not such bigotry as that expressed by the opinion of Mr Dawson. Di Cooper
Mosgiel
IN taking aim at the valid concerns of the Rev Richard Dawson, Alan Roddick shows that he does not understand the history of the Nazi programme of euthanasia.
The New York Times of October 8, 1933, carried details of a Nazi programme to ‘‘end the sufferings of incurable patients . . . by providing a painless and peaceful death’’. Doctors would attest to the ‘‘incurability’’ of the patient, who had to ‘‘expressly and earnestly’’ request it. The death certificates of those killed would not record the actual cause of death but rather the underlying condition.
Sound familiar? These are all features of David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill.
Proponents will argue that the intent of this Bill is different and that no ill will is intended to vulnerable members of society. Maybe so, but even a cursory reading of Mr Seymour’s Bill should set alarm bells ringing. The very wide eligibility criteria and the absence of meaningful safeguards against pressure or coercion make this Bill an accident waiting to happen.
At a recent public debate Mr
Seymour admitted that the current Parliament has no power to restrict any future Parliament so there is no way of knowing what extensions could be made in the future. Stephen Francis
Auckland