Salvation Army slams Street’s euthanasia bill

3 News 27 March 2012
The Salvation Army has spoken out against Labour MP Maryan Street’s intention to introduce a Private Member’s Bill legalising voluntary euthanasia. The Nelson Mail reported that Ms Street plans to introduce an ‘End of Life Choice’ Bill, which will give terminally ill people the right to physician-assisted death at a time of their choosing. Two previous attempts at passing legislation on legalised euthanasia – from Michael Laws in 1995, and Peter Brown in 2003 – failed to get through Parliament. Ms Street says the legislation would offer protection to family members and medical staff who had been asked by a terminally ill patient to help them end their life, but the Salvation Army says it could put pressure on the terminally ill to “choose an ‘early exit’”. The organisation, which believes euthanasia and assisted suicide are morally wrong regardless of illness or age, said in a statement that legalising voluntary euthanasia would “see New Zealand take steps towards non-voluntary euthanasia for those of limited mental capacity”.


6 comments for “Salvation Army slams Street’s euthanasia bill

  1. bob
    26 March 2012 at 9:52 pm

    This will be a close fight. Hopefully the churches leaders will speak out clearly, and repeatedly, and loudly against it.

    There seem to be two aspects – the ideology, and the practical. Even liberal atheists should be opposed to euthanasia laws, given the shocking reality of many people in the Netherlands being euthanased against their will – for convenience, early will payouts, or just to ‘ease grannies suffering’.

    Beyond the practical, the ideology for euthanasia is just daft. Maryann Street claims people want control – really? How much control do we really have when we are dying? Can Street put off the death? No. Can she cure the illness? No. So really, hastening the death is just an effort to avoid the possible suffering of a natural death. But physical pain can be eased by medication. And a natural death gives time to let friends and family and yourself adjust to your death…

    And that’s before the ugly spectre of the euthanasia advocates full agenda becomes clear, as we see in Dutch moves to legalise euthanasia for those not even terminally ill (effectively legalising suicide).

  2. Bob
    27 March 2012 at 2:58 pm

    Well summed up, Bob 🙂

  3. david favel
    28 March 2012 at 1:43 am

    Against their will?
    No sir, that is a slur popularised by the god party candidate Rick Santorum.
    Have you evidence for these atrocities, being that it seems to be contrary to the law of their land.

  4. Bob
    28 March 2012 at 5:18 pm

    Here’s the facts, David.
    According to a recent article published in Current Oncology by Dr. José Pereira, Medical Chief of Palliative Care at Bruyère Continuing Care in Ottawa, so-called safeguards to limit the practice of legalized euthanasia don’t work
    1. In the Netherlands, where assisted suicide and euthanasia were made legal in 2001, the law states that individuals must give written consent that they want to die. In spite of this, a 2005 study of deaths by euthanasia in the Netherlands found that almost 500 people are killed annually without their consent. Belgium has the same safeguard, nonetheless, a 2010 study found that in the Flemish part of the country, 32 per cent of euthanasia cases were carried out without request or consent.
    2. Another suggested safeguard is mandatory reporting: all cases of euthanasia must be reported to the proper authorities so that they can ensure the other safeguards are being followed. But Dr. Pereira notes that in Belgium, nearly half of all cases aren’t reported. In the Netherlands, at least 20 per cent of all cases aren’t reported.
    3. The third safeguard is that assisted suicide or euthanasia be carried out only by doctors. Yet a 2010 study of 120 Belgian nurses found that nurses administered life-ending drugs in 45 per cent of assisted suicide cases. The study also found that this was more likely when the hospital nurse was male and the patient was over 80.
    4. The fourth safeguard is a second opinion. But in Oregon, public reports show that a physician tied to a pro-assisted suicide lobby group provided consultations in 58 of 61 cases of assisted suicide in Oregon. Dr. Pereira notes, “in 1998 in the Netherlands, 25 per cent of patients requesting euthanasia received psychiatric consultation; in 2010 none did.”

  5. david favel
    28 March 2012 at 8:21 pm

    As a layman, there are a few questions I have.
    1 – His summary states that over 70’s have the right to be euthanised. This is incorrect, as it was only a citizens’ initiative called Out of Free Will.
    2 – Consent is required by the state, if consent is not given, that is murder and should be prosecuted.
    As a “liberal atheist” I have no problem with terminally ill patients choosing their own time of death.
    You wouldn’t let a dog suffer like a terminally ill cancer patient writhing in pain, would you?

  6. Bob
    29 March 2012 at 11:24 am

    Does a dog give consent? “Consent is required by the state, if consent is not given, that is murder and should be prosecuted”

Comments are closed.