Medical specialists keen for broader screening

MATHEW Zacharias makes a number of pertinent comments in his letter on bowel screening (ODT, 15.9.20).

In a region and country with among the highest colorectal cancer rates in the world, it is disappointing that screening is still causing controversy. He is, however, incorrect that the ‘‘wise hospital specialists’’ teamed up with the Government to restrict access.

Many gastroenterologists and surgeons advocated strongly for a broader age range for inclusion. The age range was trimmed further from that used in the Waitemata pilot project, as was the sensitivity of the test used, purely to accommodate the lack of workforce available to deal with predictable consequences. The programme is still being implemented.

Better resources and time are essential both for costly colonoscopy training and extension of surgical facilities to deal with consequences of a higher caseloads. Neither has yet been implemented satisfactorily in the Southern District Health Board.

Discrimination against people purely on age is a false economy, and does not pass critical statistical analysis.

Gil Barbezat Emeritus Professor of Medicine

Roslyn

Euthanasia

WHILE respecting Dr Libby Smales’ professional training, experience and expertise I cannot let pass a number of assumptions and errors of fact in her article (Opinion, 11.9.20).

I am a New Zealand citizen living in Australia.

Australia does not have one assisted dying Act. There are a number as each state passes its own legislation on this matter.

Indeed, not all states have an assisted dying or euthanasia Act. The Legislative Council in Tasmania is considering a fourth attempt to introduce such an Act in that state.

We need to consider whether doctors’ diagnoses are infallible, or can a doctor be mistaken? It is rare that anyone can predict with any accuracy the exact time that a person will die.

Should assisting a person to take their life be the solution to relieving unbearable suffering? Not all specialists in pain management agree. Surely we ought to be encouraging the best research in the area of pain management rather than throwing in the towel and saying we will help you end your life.

What is unbearable suffering? Nowhere in her article does Dr Smales make this clear. It need not necessarily refer to physical suffering. There are documented cases of doctors considering that mental suffering is a grounds for providing lifeending medication.

As Dr Smales’ article makes clear, a person may request euthanasia and then change their mind. It is to be hoped that occurs before they have taken the lethal medication.

Such legislation as proposed is discriminatory. If the legislation is passed as Dr Smales indicates, only those who are mentally capable of deciding will be able to access the provisions of this Act. This means those who are not mentally capable will not be able to access it, or will someone else make the decision on their behalf?

Neil McDonald Henty, New South Wales [Abridged]

Cannabis

THOSE voting for the legalisation of marijuana in the New Zealand referendum, please reflect that if the vote is Yes they will be bringing in what will be, in effect, a form of slavery to a large, vulnerable segment of the New Zealand population which will see this nation and its people going backwards, not forwards.

S. Maitland

Westland ..................................

BIBLE READING: If we are faithless, He remains faithful. — 2 Timothy 2:13.