Nobody should be coerced to die. Disturbing that we live in world where this is even up for discussion. There is a definite lack of palliative care funding that's why people are choosing to end their lives because they feel like they could be a burden to their loved ones. I'm with Simon..
My best friend ended his life in 2012, before any of this was possible. He had lived in excruciating pain that painkillers could not relieve, for over a decade. It was terrible to see him suffer but it came as a huge shock when I got the call that he had saved up his (useless) painkillers and taken them all in the middle of the night. The details of how he must have died were horrific and devastating. It's incredibly sad that, even now, he could not have found relief from his suffering under the current legislation. RIP, Kevin. I miss you mate.
He's wrong about the Canada situation. I have close family in Canada. The situation is actually two situations: 1. Some people are being told all their options, misunderstand, and think it's being suggested that they just end it all. 2. Many disabled people are unable to access the healthcare or living situations that would alleviate their suffering. Because they are denied that help, some see medical assistance in dying as their only option to escape their suffering. Their complaint is that _it's harder to get the help they really need to live,_ than it is to get medically assisted death (which isn't easy to qualify for).
To be fair, your family only knows what they hear, read or experience. I’ve heard of two situations that were very clearly doctors or nurses suggesting that a person with a disability should consider medically assisted death. The words and meaning weren’t misunderstood. It happens.
@@catlady5359 Yes, you're right, it does happen. However, it's uncommon. The majority of people who access MAID sincerely desire it and haven't been coerced. Then there are those who want to access MAID and aren't able to because the proposed changes that would allow them to, are being postponed indefinitely. There are also myriad cases where people who want to access MAID are being coerced by family into _not_ applying. People who are trying to receive the medical service in their hospitals but being painfully moved to other locations to get it because of the hospital's religious opposition to it. People who want it before they lose themselves to dementia, but because of red tape, lose their ability to give consent before they can get it. I _did_ hear of a possible case where someone changed their mind before getting it, and was given it anyway, but this story is not confirmed. The majority of objections come from people who don't want their loved ones to access MAID, like the father that sued to have his adult daughter's pending MAID cancelled (she was 27). I keep abreast of Canadian MAID news because I have an immediate family member who is very ill and determined to apply for it and end her suffering when she can't endure it anymore. She sees the current regulations surrounding MAID as too restrictive, even though those who are against people making the choice to escape their suffering see them as too loose. Simon mentioned a very tiny number of cases and made it seem that they were common and the majority of situations. That was incorrect and disingenuous of him.
Good on you, Simon O Connor, we need people like yourself to speak the truth, on things like Assisted Dying, and other issues, we are all facing today. Brother in Chrst Matt
The slippery slope argument is weak. It’s effectively saying “I don’t have a good enough argument against what you’re proposing so I’m going to fearmonger and speculate about possible future changes and argue against those instead.” Any change to the Act requires a deliberate legislative change that must go through Parliament, all Kiwis will have the opportunity to have their say at select committee and it must but voted on by MPs.
The slippery slope argument is being demonstrated as real and valid right now! Look at the expansions being considered: no six month prognosis, no gag on doctors or nurses, degenerative illnesses and dementia included as eligible and probably more. And considering that MPs largely ignored the submissions against EOLC from the majority of medical organisations and voters when they voted, with two parties voting as a block in a *conscience vote*, I have very little trust in the government or the submission process.
Weak argument His Family First contributions are almost sinister On coercion, he is happy to go along with doctors paying for abortion reversal pills (ref. recent FF interview)
Thank you Simon for a level headed sensible review of what is actually happening. You are very missed from our Parliament.
Awesome arguments Simon, I'm shocked there is no funding for palative care God Bless you for all your good work over the years
Nice one Simon. Well done. Great questions and answers.
Nobody should be coerced to die. Disturbing that we live in world where this is even up for discussion.
There is a definite lack of palliative care funding that's why people are choosing to end their lives because they feel like they could be a burden to their loved ones. I'm with Simon..
Good clear discussion, may the best for all New Zealanders of all situations be best cared for by the outcome
My best friend ended his life in 2012, before any of this was possible. He had lived in excruciating pain that painkillers could not relieve, for over a decade. It was terrible to see him suffer but it came as a huge shock when I got the call that he had saved up his (useless) painkillers and taken them all in the middle of the night. The details of how he must have died were horrific and devastating. It's incredibly sad that, even now, he could not have found relief from his suffering under the current legislation.
RIP, Kevin. I miss you mate.
Thank you, Simon, for clear and persistent answers. We are so grateful for all the understanding and work you have put into this.
Well said Simon!
Great interview Simon. Well said!
Great job Simon
Thank you for presenting the other side, Simon. You raised some crucial points.
Well done Simon...
He's wrong about the Canada situation. I have close family in Canada. The situation is actually two situations: 1. Some people are being told all their options, misunderstand, and think it's being suggested that they just end it all. 2. Many disabled people are unable to access the healthcare or living situations that would alleviate their suffering. Because they are denied that help, some see medical assistance in dying as their only option to escape their suffering. Their complaint is that _it's harder to get the help they really need to live,_ than it is to get medically assisted death (which isn't easy to qualify for).
To be fair, your family only knows what they hear, read or experience. I’ve heard of two situations that were very clearly doctors or nurses suggesting that a person with a disability should consider medically assisted death. The words and meaning weren’t misunderstood. It happens.
@@catlady5359 Yes, you're right, it does happen. However, it's uncommon. The majority of people who access MAID sincerely desire it and haven't been coerced. Then there are those who want to access MAID and aren't able to because the proposed changes that would allow them to, are being postponed indefinitely. There are also myriad cases where people who want to access MAID are being coerced by family into _not_ applying. People who are trying to receive the medical service in their hospitals but being painfully moved to other locations to get it because of the hospital's religious opposition to it. People who want it before they lose themselves to dementia, but because of red tape, lose their ability to give consent before they can get it. I _did_ hear of a possible case where someone changed their mind before getting it, and was given it anyway, but this story is not confirmed. The majority of objections come from people who don't want their loved ones to access MAID, like the father that sued to have his adult daughter's pending MAID cancelled (she was 27).
I keep abreast of Canadian MAID news because I have an immediate family member who is very ill and determined to apply for it and end her suffering when she can't endure it anymore. She sees the current regulations surrounding MAID as too restrictive, even though those who are against people making the choice to escape their suffering see them as too loose.
Simon mentioned a very tiny number of cases and made it seem that they were common and the majority of situations. That was incorrect and disingenuous of him.
Well said from Simon. This isn't Coca-Cola and Pepsi we are talking about.
Well said Simon...👍
Agreed.
Listening to Simon O'connor bleat a diatribe of, " I know better than anybody else", I was thinking,,,,,, why doesn't he just go away and shut up!!!
Good on you, Simon O Connor, we need people like yourself to speak the truth, on things like Assisted Dying, and other issues, we are all facing today.
Brother in Chrst
Matt
subjective opinion -I" I just can't believe..." and focusses on small or irrelevant details...
The slippery slope argument is weak. It’s effectively saying “I don’t have a good enough argument against what you’re proposing so I’m going to fearmonger and speculate about possible future changes and argue against those instead.” Any change to the Act requires a deliberate legislative change that must go through Parliament, all Kiwis will have the opportunity to have their say at select committee and it must but voted on by MPs.
The slippery slope argument is being demonstrated as real and valid right now! Look at the expansions being considered: no six month prognosis, no gag on doctors or nurses, degenerative illnesses and dementia included as eligible and probably more. And considering that MPs largely ignored the submissions against EOLC from the majority of medical organisations and voters when they voted, with two parties voting as a block in a *conscience vote*, I have very little trust in the government or the submission process.
Weak argument His Family First contributions are almost sinister On coercion, he is happy to go along with doctors paying for abortion reversal pills (ref. recent FF interview)
Do you mean he wants doctors to fund abortion reversal pills rather than the state?
Watch the interview at Family First He does not challenge the doctor being interviewed
He's got no credibility, ignore him