Doctors will still have choice if euthanasia passes

YOUR contributor Caroline Ansley (Opinion, 13.10.20) claims, bizarrely, that she and other doctors cannot apply the principles of the End of Life Choice Act without ‘‘a few years first at a school of wizardry’’, or using a ‘‘pensieve’’, a ‘‘truth serum’’, ‘‘magic potion’’, or a ‘‘crystal ball’’, in order to assist with what she refers to as ‘‘the death curse’’.

Is this how she thinks about things in her medical practice?

No doctors are required to work under the terms of the Act if they have a conscientious objection to doing so.

That is their choice, just as the Act offers choice to dying patients, should they feel they need to ask for that.

If Dr Ansley looks at doctors’ experience of similar laws in Victoria, and in Oregon, she will find that none of them have needed recourse to magic, and neither will she, when the EOLC Act comes into force in New Zealand.

Pat and Alan Roddick

Waverley

DR Caroline Ansley is so obviously in the ‘‘doctor knows best’’ camp.

Her final sentence, ‘‘In giving us power to use the death curse, a power that most doctors do not want as it fundamentally conflicts with our code of ethics, this Act will take away our freedom of choice in how we care for our patients.’’ — ouch.

First, ‘‘our code of ethics’’ includes ‘‘I will respect the wishes of my patient’’.

Next, the freedom to choose my death is not hers to exercise. It’s mine, and mine alone.

And curse? If I am eligible for assistance to die, I will regard it as a blessing.

Most doctors don’t want it? Who knows? The Act isn’t in force yet in New Zealand but overseas experience suggests that when it is, there will be enough with the compassion to perform this service.

I would want a GP who is prepared to have a factual discussion about the End of Life Choice Act. No mumbo jumbo about magic and curses, please.

D. Cooper

Kapiti

[Abridged]