Loss of independence key issue in euthanasia

THE Rev Richard Dawson (ODT, 30.11.18) is misguided enough to think that pain is the only problem associated with dying. In most cases, pain is not a problem during the last days of a human life. It is the loss of independence with loss of strength and the ability to live as a functioning human being, that is the hardest to cope with. The reduction to a shell with an exhausted brain is for some people, intolerable. Has this man never seen this? What effrontery to tell them to put up with this. It’s not his choice. It’s none of his business.

His article then offensively claims that the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis was euthanasia. Shovelling naked people unwillingly into gas chambers by the millions or working them to death in mines or shooting them pointblank for helping another human or just for being born who they were — that is not mass euthanasia. It is the most serious and disgusting crime of our history.

No wonder the churches are empty. God help them. Lyndell Kelly

St Leonards

THE Rev Richard Dawson makes some extraordinary statements that require rebuttal, but space limits me to two.

He states that pain is a key element in the production of character. Even if this were true, why are such efforts made to relieve pain in palliative care? And in the minority of cases in which pain cannot be relieved, it’s doubtful if an elderly person in the late stages of cancer would be particularly impressed by the characterbuilding argument; it’s a bit late in the day for that.

Second, the fact that ‘‘some people feel their lives so lack meaning that they want to end it’’, does not amount to a societal belief that ‘‘anyone who cannot contribute as they once did, or would like to do, is worthy of death’’. Even if it did, the Seymour Bill makes it clear that it’s the view of the sufferer that counts. Martin Hanson

Richmond I SUPPOSE we must assume that the Rev Richard Dawson, (Opinion, 1.12.18) is sincere in his views, but it would be really helpful if he actually read the proposed legislation upon which he is commenting.

The End of Life Choice Bill is not about people choosing whether to live or die, as is the case with suicide. It is about terminally ill people who have no choice about whether they will continue to live, having the right to choose how and when they die.

These people are at or near the end of their lives. Nevertheless, they have to be examined by two, sometimes three, doctors, and they must be mentally competent throughout.

There is no evidence from the countries which already allow assisted dying, that it has caused a ‘‘rising tide’’ of youth suicide. That is simply scaremongering by Mr Dawson.

Young people take their own lives because they get overwhelmed by feelings they don’t know how to handle, and by life‘s problems: bullying, friendship and relationship problems, gender and sexuality issues, pressures of study and finding work, alcohol and drug problems, money stresses, family issues, low selfesteem, mental health problems, and so on.

Teenagers sometimes find it impossible to imagine a future beyond the black hole they’re in right now, and males especially find it hard to talk about their feelings. Because young people live in the present, they tend to be impulsive, so suicide can seem like a solution to the problems. But there is no way that such a person would be considered eligible under Clause 4 of the End of Life Choice Bill.

We owe it to our teens to give them all the support and help that we can, and to show compassion to those suffering at the end of their lives. Shame on you Mr Dawson: compassion is one of the basic tenets of Christianity, is it not.

Dianne Cooper

Waikanae