I’ve
written several posts on the New Zealand Medical Association’s negligent
position on euthanasia, best summed up in
this post on why it is urgent we have euthanasia law enacted (with links to
my correspondence with the post chair of NZMA):
In this post and this post to Dr. Mark
Peterson, Chair of the New Zealand Medical Association, I explained how the
NZMA’s position against euthanasia is based upon a contradiction, or a conceit,
rather, and as such, is an irresponsible, dangerous (for doctors and patients),
ethical mess. That contradiction is NZMA opposing legal euthanasia, yet with
that stance ‘justified’ by dint of the back-street provision they cite of it
being ethical for doctors over-prescribing pain killers to keep pain at bay,
even if to an extent that might hasten
death, despite no threshold or certainty is provided as to what
'over-prescribe' or 'hasten' means. Incredibly on an official level it's the
‘we don’t need euthanasia legalised because it already unofficially occurs’ nonsense. This stance also draws the
inference, repugnant to myself, that it's Dr. Peterson and his colleagues who
know best and get to decide the circumstances of a death; that the decision
over a dignified exit is not up to those dying.
Such a mealy mouthed wording, and professional arrogance, in a matter
that concerns all of us at the most poignant part of our lives, dying, is as
offensive as it is preposterous.
I’ve
also
written previously on Lecretia Seales who died this year after her
unsuccessful legal action to be given the choice of dying with dignity.
Yesterday her husband Matt significantly wrote this of doctors and the NZMA
(my highlighting):
I had a chat with someone today, a healthcare professional, who was very
clearly in favour of Lecretia having the choice she wanted. Here was a person
on the front lines, working with a lot of dying patients, and completely
familiar with the gap between the rhetoric and the reality of palliative
care, as Dr Rodney Syme calls it. They knew and felt that a patient
having that choice was not going to interfere with them being able to do their
job, that it’s arrogant in the extreme
to deny a patient choices, and yet the organisation that purports to represent
them holds a completely inconsistent view. Sadly, given the number of doctors and nurses I’ve spoken to who are
supportive and would want the choice for themselves are frightened into silence
for fear of being reprimanded by these associations.
It’s only when doctors or nurses find themselves in a
terminal situation, such as well-respected Auckland doctor John Pollock in 2010 or
Australian palliative care nurse Ray Godbold earlier this
year, that they find the bravery to speak out about the choices they
want. I think some of these professional
associations need to take a good hard look at themselves and figure out whether
they really reflect the varied views of their members and what those members
would want for themselves in a terminal situation, or whether their executives
are using their position as spokespeople to advance their own beliefs. If
that’s the case, I hope their membership summon the bravery to recognise that
and call them out. Because it really isn’t on.
I
hope NZMA will not be making a submission to the select committee against
euthanasia. For them to do that would be callous, cruel, hypocritical, and
unrepresentative. I note that since Dr. Childs took over as head of NZMA, I have had one correspondence with
him on this topic; his reply was the below:
1) As noted in our recent media statements, the NZMA fully
respects the rights of patients to decide (patient autonomy) as included within
our Code of Ethics.
2) Therefore we fully respect the right of society to debate this
topic and have made no attempt to stifle this discussion or to pass strong
judgement on the outcome.
3) The medical profession respects the rights of patients to:
A) refuse treatment
B) to withdraw treatment
and
C) have relief of
suffering via sedation and analgesia
D ) access good
palliative care services
4) Our only strong public stance pertains to the medical professionals
ultimate involvement in the act of voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide in
which we hold the position that .." irrespective of the laws of the state,
it is considered unethical for a medical professional to be involved in the
intentional act of terminating life"
5) Therefore, we disagree with those comments and positions that
you have mistakenly attributed to the stance of the NZMA.
A
better stance than the previous Dr. Peterson, but still appalling. The options
for dying given in his point (3), particularly (a), and (b) are frankly
inhumane, meaning in practical terms a patient starves to death sometimes over a period of more than a month, and by (c) he is (in main part) talking morphine which does not work for many,
including this week Helen Kelly, and there is no recourse in this kindy of a country
to cannabis oil as an alternative.
Regarding
his point (4), as Matt writes above, NZMA does not talk for its membership on
that point, not by any stretch. In the overseas jurisdictions where it is legal, many doctors are happy to ethically and compassionately - compared to the alternative of starvation - provide an assisted dying service. We all self-manage our health issues throughout our lives; this decision is merely the end of that process: let's grow up.
None
of this is good enough.
