Read on Twitter
OMG there's a lot of mis-information about the Assisted Dying referenda.
a) it's called Assisted Dying, NOT euthanasia. If you use the word 'euthanasia' you have not done your research (read the gumpf the Electoral Commission sent out!)
b) There are 6 criteria 1/n
a) it's called Assisted Dying, NOT euthanasia. If you use the word 'euthanasia' you have not done your research (read the gumpf the Electoral Commission sent out!)
b) There are 6 criteria 1/n
- be over 18
- NZ citizen
- suffer terminal illness with less than 6mths to live
- have significant ongoing decline in physical capability
- experience unbearable suffering
- be able to make informed decision
So basically, terminal illness, with severe debilitating effects 2/n
- NZ citizen
- suffer terminal illness with less than 6mths to live
- have significant ongoing decline in physical capability
- experience unbearable suffering
- be able to make informed decision
So basically, terminal illness, with severe debilitating effects 2/n
And you have to be cognitively present to *request* assisted dying (a nurse/doctor gives you the pill, you physically must take it).
These are very narrow grounds, and excludes people who are delirious (fail cognition criteria), or who are simply disabled 3/n
These are very narrow grounds, and excludes people who are delirious (fail cognition criteria), or who are simply disabled 3/n
(fails terminal illness test), or who are simply old (fails terminal illness criteria, fails ongoing/significant physical decline).
These are very narrow grounds so realistically, the only people this is available to is a) someone with terminal illness b) signif. decline 4/n
These are very narrow grounds so realistically, the only people this is available to is a) someone with terminal illness b) signif. decline 4/n
c) unbearable suffering d) can cognitively understand the process of assisted dying (doc/nurse gives you pill/potion - YOU must physically swallow it).
In summary - it's NOT euthanasia, it is Assisted Dying, the criteria are very narrow so a very small group of people eligible.
In summary - it's NOT euthanasia, it is Assisted Dying, the criteria are very narrow so a very small group of people eligible.
So of course I go to Legislation NZ website to read the bill. Very interesting. Purpose upfront "to give persons who have a terminal illness and who meet certain criteria the option of lawfully requesting medical assistance to end their live". Well, that's pretty clear. /n
There's a lot of strike-outs in the bill so it's much improved. Section 2 - eligibility - "suffers from a terminal illness that is likely to end the person’s life within 6 months; and
(d) is in an advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability; and (e) .../n
(d) is in an advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability; and (e) .../n
experiences unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable; and
(f) is competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying.
But what's interesting is who is not eligible! /n
(f) is competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying.
But what's interesting is who is not eligible! /n
"A person is not a person who is eligible for assisted dying or an eligible person by reason only that the person—
(a) is suffering from any form of mental disorder or mental illness; or
(b) has a disability of any kind; or
(c) is of advanced age."
Well. Disabled? Forget it! /n
(a) is suffering from any form of mental disorder or mental illness; or
(b) has a disability of any kind; or
(c) is of advanced age."
Well. Disabled? Forget it! /n
Old? have MH issues? Forget it!
In this respect the bill is very very restrictive. You have to be NOT disabled, or old or have MH issues. If you have terminal illness and are either disabled, old or have MH issues, tough luck. Not eligible.
In this respect the bill is very very restrictive. You have to be NOT disabled, or old or have MH issues. If you have terminal illness and are either disabled, old or have MH issues, tough luck. Not eligible.
Sect 4 - competency. Again pretty restrictive. You have to "understand information about the nature of assisted dying that is relevant to the decision; and
(b) retain that information to the extent necessary to make the decision; and
(c) use or weigh that information as .../n
(b) retain that information to the extent necessary to make the decision; and
(c) use or weigh that information as .../n
"part of the process of making the decision; and
(d) communicate the decision in some way."
Oh boy, more restrictions. Which is odd for the ACT party who sponsored the bill but we'll leave that aside.
So terminal illness, and you have to have your wits about you. Phew! /n
(d) communicate the decision in some way."
Oh boy, more restrictions. Which is odd for the ACT party who sponsored the bill but we'll leave that aside.
So terminal illness, and you have to have your wits about you. Phew! /n
Sect 5 - conscientious objection by medical person - looks to have been inserted by religious groups - weirdly an employer can't discriminated against someone who is a conscientious objector.
So you have to find someone who is ok with assisted dying. Another restriction! /n
So you have to find someone who is ok with assisted dying. Another restriction! /n
Sect 7. Medical person forbidden from suggesting assisted dying - Medical Council disciplinary proceedings is punishment (these are expensive easily upwards of $50k). So you have to initiate the conversation.
No medical practitioner can discuss it with their patients. /n
No medical practitioner can discuss it with their patients. /n
Sect 8 - what happens when you request it? Clauses a - h set out the discussion topics and who needs to know. Practical step. Medical practitioner must "do their best to ensure that the person expresses their wish free from pressure from any other person by—
(i)conferring ... /n
(i)conferring ... /n
with other health practitioners who are in regular contact with the person; and
(ii) conferring with members of the person’s family approved by the person; "
Ahhh, so a way to make sure the patient is totally competent by surprise! asking others! Sensible. /n
(ii) conferring with members of the person’s family approved by the person; "
Ahhh, so a way to make sure the patient is totally competent by surprise! asking others! Sensible. /n
Sect 8 must be documented in a Form. Sect 9 deals with confirmation of request which requires *another* form. Phew. Paper work building up here, development of red tape. More restriction! Phew. You'd need to be VERY determined to undertake assisted dying. /n
Sect 10 & 11 requires more forms, patients own doctor fills in form confirming their opinion and a completely different doctor must do the same - read the files and fill in a form. More forms, more tape, more restrictions.
oh boy, if two people can't agree competency of patient, then MORE FORMS to be filled in by independent psychiatrist. MORE FORMS people.
Phew... is the end in sight? No. Another form. Doctor says yay or nay to request and fills in a form (sect 13/14).
Phew... is the end in sight? No. Another form. Doctor says yay or nay to request and fills in a form (sect 13/14).
If yay, then person chooses time/date of assisted dying & FILLS IN A FORM (sect 15) which triggers sect 16 - the method of dying.
Doctor has to discuss and in particular "advise the person about the following methods for the administration of a lethal dose of the medication:...
Doctor has to discuss and in particular "advise the person about the following methods for the administration of a lethal dose of the medication:...
"...(i) ingestion, triggered by the person:
(ii) intravenous delivery, triggered by the person:
(iii) ingestion through a tube, triggered by the attending medical practitioner or an attending nurse practitioner:
(iv) injection administered by the attending medical practitioner or
(ii) intravenous delivery, triggered by the person:
(iii) ingestion through a tube, triggered by the attending medical practitioner or an attending nurse practitioner:
(iv) injection administered by the attending medical practitioner or
"... an attending nurse practitioner; and
(b) ask the person to choose one of the methods"
You can see what's going to happen here, right? Methods i and ii will be pushed hard bc who the fuck would want to push a button causing someone's death?
Nearly there - but more FORMS.
(b) ask the person to choose one of the methods"
You can see what's going to happen here, right? Methods i and ii will be pushed hard bc who the fuck would want to push a button causing someone's death?
Nearly there - but more FORMS.
Yep more forms. These all go to a Registrar, who essentially certifies ALL the forms are correct and advises that procedure can be undertaken (sect 15). It's called crossing the t's and dotting the i's. The State wants to be triply sure things are aok.
Time/date arrives - Doctor does final check w patient - if patient says no, then medicine is taken away immediately, and yep a form is filled in. (I guess this sends patient back to square one). If patient says yes, then medicine is administered. More forms of course. (sect 16)
Subsequent sections more forms (sect 17, 18). And I was right, back to Square One if person says no at time of administration of medicine (sect 18)
Interesting - an all out section - 18B - essentially if doctor or nurse suspects at any time patient is being pressured then ...
Interesting - an all out section - 18B - essentially if doctor or nurse suspects at any time patient is being pressured then ...
another form, and the process stops immediately. Not sure if this sends the patient back to Square one - this is not clear.
Part 3 deals with Accountability so various bodies have to report and Minister has to report to the House. /n
Part 3 deals with Accountability so various bodies have to report and Minister has to report to the House. /n
Part 4 has supplementary matters. Interestingly, Welfare Guardians have no power to make decisions under the Act. Severe restrictions on making details of the assisted dying public -basically you cannot discuss it in public. Doctors/nurses have immunity from criminal liability...
only if all the procedures were carried out correctly and ALL the forms were correctly filled in.
And that's the end of the Bill.
So basically, very restrictive grounds, and loads of forms with a powerful escape clause for doctors/nurses to stop process immediately. /n
And that's the end of the Bill.
So basically, very restrictive grounds, and loads of forms with a powerful escape clause for doctors/nurses to stop process immediately. /n
If you are disabled, old or have MH issues, tough luck, you aren't eligible.
Of course all this applies to 18+ year olds so kiddies aren't eligible at all.
Really, it's for people who have terminal illness, less than 6mths to live, significant physical decline and ...
Of course all this applies to 18+ year olds so kiddies aren't eligible at all.
Really, it's for people who have terminal illness, less than 6mths to live, significant physical decline and ...
are suffering unbearably. That's a very SMALL group of people.
Given all this, I have no desire to stand in the way of them and accordingly I'll be voting yes.
Should future govt want to expand, I'll oppose it ferociously.
Given all this, I have no desire to stand in the way of them and accordingly I'll be voting yes.
Should future govt want to expand, I'll oppose it ferociously.
@threadreaderapp unroll please! Thank you.
