Maxim: Choice is compromised in NZ euthanasia regime

Maxim Institute research manager Maryanne Spurdle has criticised the conclusion of a 2024 Health Ministry report that the implementation of the Act had “largely been operating well”.

“The committee tasked with reviewing euthanasia death reports found missing, conflicting and alarming information,” Mrs Spurdle wrote.

“Far from the process being safe, they said they ‘would not be able to detect wrongdoing if it was occurring’. The ministry only added to their alarm, instructing them to ‘assume nothing was wrong’ when required information was missing.”

Mrs Spurdle said there was one reported case where a person was euthanised despite not speaking English, having no translator present at their assessment and likely suffering from dementia.

The committee saw more applications from rural areas than they expected – areas that have some of the worst access to palliative care specialists and hospices, Mrs Spurdle added.

“Even Belgium, with its liberal euthanasia laws, aspires to offer a fair choice,” she said. “Its legislation includes a ‘right to palliative care’ provision. Why? Because any health system that doesn’t offer to ease all patients’ suffering should never offer all patients a terminal ‘fix’.”

Most hospices get some government funding, Mrs Spurdle said, “but our health system’s commitment to that network is so tepid that they all rely on fundraising, volunteers and a network of op shops to keep their doors open”.

“The Ministry of Health doesn’t appear to support all choices equally,” Mrs Spurdle said, noting that assisted dying is fully funded.

“[The Ministry’s] report glosses over the ineffectiveness of safeguards and even recommends removing some to speed up the process. Never mind that the shortest time from application to death is already just two days, or that euthanasia laws elsewhere require a cool-down period. Why? Because suicidal patients often change their minds.

“Nowhere are these tensions more clearly seen than in the Ministry’s characterisation of Māori whānau who equate euthanasia with suicide. The ministry describes this attitude as ‘point[ing] to a lack of awareness and acceptability of assisted dying within Māori communities’ and issues a clear prescription: assisted dying must become ‘familiar, understood, and accepted’.

“Translation? If you don’t like this ‘choice’, you need to change.”

Mrs Spurdle argued that the health system should ensure that palliative care becomes familiar, understood and fully funded.

FULL STORY

Are We Euthanising Choice? (By Maryanne Spurdle/The Post – subscription required)