Doctors refuse to back euthanasia

"This is an irreversible decision in which the consequences are final." Dr Stephen Child

Short-changing a terminally ill patient on their prognosis - and the grey area between a ‘‘rational’’ suicide and an ‘‘irrational’’ one pose too great a risk for doctors to support euthanasia laws.

The New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA), which represents about 5500 medical professionals, has told MPs it could not support any changes to allow assisted suicide.

The NZMA was one of a number of organisations speaking to a parliamentary inquiry into the practice of euthanasia.

While the inquiry would result in no law changes, a member’s bill by ACT leader David Seymour to legalise euthanasia is waiting to be pulled from the ballot.

New Zealand Medical Association chairman Dr Stephen Child said the scope for error was too large, when weighed against the outcome.

‘‘This is an irreversible decision in which the consequences are final.’’

Doctors were not always right in determining a patient’s prognosis, Child said.

‘‘On diagnosis, 10 to 15 per cent of autopsies show that the diagnosis was incorrect. Three per cent of diagnoses of cancer are incorrect.

‘‘You need to have a terminal illness with death within six months, and there are many examples in Oregon [which has legalised euthanasia] of which death is longer than six months.’’

NZMA ‘‘wholeheartedly’’ supported patient autonomy, which included the right for patients to refuse treatment, or ask for treatment to be withheld.

But a decision for a patient to end their own life had to be ‘‘free will’’, which was difficult to ensure.

‘‘Decisions however are often influenced by circumstance, by fear of what the future might hold, by concern for loved ones and by societal expectations, which can cause direct and indirect coercion in decison-making.’’

As part of her submission to the health select committee, on behalf of thinktank the Morgan Foundation, Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw detailed the death of her stepfather last year, after a battle with cancer.

‘‘Six weeks after his diagnosis, his clear and competent directive was that he wanted an assisted death - it was very consistent with his thoughts on death and his values throughout his life.

‘‘The next few months brought only distress and difficult meetings as a family as we tried very hard to meet his needs, but we could not give him the one thing he wanted.’’

She said the foundation had uncovered no ‘‘high quality evidence that convinced us legalising assisting dying had more harms than benefits’’.

Speaking on behalf of Care Alliance, secretary Matthew Jansen said legalising euthanasia was ‘‘unnecessary and dangerous’’.

‘‘Palliative care works ... [for] terminal patients.’’

It was not acceptable to ‘‘throw up your your hands and say it’s all too difficult’’, to say ‘‘we can’t give you a perfect outcome, therefore we will give you a lethal injection’’.

Parliament’s health select committee is partway through an inquiry prompted by a petition from the voluntary Euthanasia Society of New Zealand and former Labour MP Maryan Street, following the death of right-to-die campaigner Lecretia Seales.

A record 21,435 submissions were received.