The ‘burden’ debate

It is extraordinary that, with the jury very much still out on the Seymour bill, Mary Singleton (Letters, Jan 14) should venture to condone reasons which would clearly discriminate against vulnerable people.

Singleton asks what is so wrong with not wanting to be a burden. Well, there are plenty of reasons.

The first is that if a person feels pressure (whether internal or external) to request assisted dying, then they are not really making a free choice.

Altruism – or consideration for others – is one thing; this would be quite another. Very quickly ‘‘the right to die’’ can become ‘‘the duty to die’’.

Such a ‘‘duty’’ would swiftly fuel the selfishness of others, especially younger relatives. This group are already the prime movers in our national shame that is elder abuse. Three-quarters of elder abuse is carried out by family members and about the same proportion involves financial fraud.

It would also set a new low in public values, encouraging politicians to regard citizens as expendable economic units once their ‘‘use-by dates’’ have run out, particularly if there are high costs involved in their treatment.

The acceptance of these utilitarian ‘‘values’’ would set our society back hundreds of years.

Paula Salisbury, Hamilton

I actually wonder if those who decry the people who say being a burden is not a good reason have ever been in the position of experiencing this feeling.

As someone who was diagnosed with a grade 4 cancer and the aggressive treatment for this, I experienced this feeling very strongly. I couldn’t do anything for myself and was dependent on others. I watched my 19-year-old son have no social life, only leaving the house to go to university and work – this because he was concerned about leaving me alone.

While yes, he should have done this, after all I had raised him, it was important to me for him to have these experiences and to get his degree. I was reliant on him and all my friends to do everything for me, and finally chose to go into a nursing home to relieve him of this stress. It is a very powerful feeling of guilt and really pulls the person down.

Don’t underestimate its effect or trivialise it, as this is how it feels when it is used as an argument against the End of Life Choice Bill.

Esther Richards, Tauranga

Whilst I am quite comfortable with making my own decision if appropriate, Mary Singleton illustrates the definitive reason for not legalising an industry for end of life processing.

Who engenders the ‘‘fear’’ that she says is justification for assisted dying. Who says ‘‘I am afraid the taxpayer can’t afford me any more, time to go’’? The concept that giving in to fear of being an inconvenience is ‘‘altruistic’’ is abhorrent, even to a realist such as myself.

If the current legislation is passed, it is people with Singleton’s attitude that the practitioners need to be wary of.

Bill Aitchison, Carterton

Mary Singleton’s attitude is to be both unselfish to her family, friends and the health system and considerate for her own timely and dignified death. Having seen my mother die an awful death with Alzheimer’s, I too want to spare my family that horror and if it frees up medical finances for a better cause so much the better.

As a result, I have left instructions (as official as possible) to guide my doctors and family to a dignified end, should I get Alzheimer’s or anything similar. I only pray that the law will allow this at the time.

George Marshall, Whanganui