Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

Euthanasia-Free NZ welcomes New York High Court decision

New York High Court decides ‘Aid-in-Dying’ is Assisted Suicide


Euthanasia-Free NZ welcomes the New York High Court’s decision to uphold the law against ‘assisted dying’.

The Voluntary Euthanasia Society and their overseas counterparts argue that there is a fundamental difference between suicide and ‘aid-in-dying’ and that the latter should therefore be legal.

Yesterday the New York High Court decided that ‘aid-in-dying’, also called ‘medically assisted dying’, is indeed assisted suicide and that there is no right to assisted suicide in New York.

This decision is far from unique. The New Mexico Supreme Court made a similar decision in June 2016. In recent years courts have also upheld laws prohibiting ‘assisted dying’ in New York, Tennessee, California, San Francisco, the UK, South Africa, the European Court of Human Rights and in New Zealand (the Lecretia Seales case in June 2015).

The New York High Court stated in Meyers v. Schneiderman:

“Suicide” is not defined in the Penal Law, and therefore “we must give the term its ordinary and commonly understood meaning” … Suicide has long been understood as “the act or an instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally.”…Black’s Law Dictionary defines “suicide” as “[t]he act of taking one’s own life,” and “assisted suicide” as “[t]he intentional act of providing a person with the medical means or the medical knowledge to commit suicide” (10th ed 2014). Aid-in-dying falls squarely within the ordinary meaning of the statutory prohibition on assisting a suicide.


The Court upheld the well-established distinction between refusing life-sustaining treatment and assisted suicide

The Voluntary Euthanasia Society and its overseas counterparts argue that there is no ethical difference between the refusal of life-sustaining medical intervention and receiving lethal drugs from a doctor to end one’s life.

The New York High Court disagree:

In the case of the terminally ill, refusing treatment involves declining life-sustaining techniques that intervene to delay death. Aid-in-dying, by contrast, involves a physician actively prescribing lethal drugs for the purpose of directly causing the patient’s death.

Unintended consequences of ‘assisted dying’ legislation

The Court concluded that “our legislature has a rational basis for criminalizing assisted suicide” and stated:

As summarized by the Supreme Court, the State’s interests in prohibiting assisted suicide include: “prohibiting intentional killing and preserving life; preventing suicide; maintaining physicians’ role as their patients’ healers; protecting vulnerable people from indifference, prejudice, and psychological and financial pressure to end their lives; and avoiding a possible slide towards euthanasia.”

The New York High Court’s judgement confirms that the legalisation of assisted suicide, by any name, involves unintended consequences that put vulnerable people at risk.

Euthanasia-Free NZ urge the public and politicians of New Zealand to reject ‘assisted dying’ legislation, and in particular David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Gordon Campbell: On Where The Politically-donated Bucks Should Be Stopping

By now, it seems crystal clear that something is deeply amiss with the way that New Zealand political parties solicit, receive and report their funding. Evidently, the nominal threshold of $15,000 that requires public disclosure of the donation and its source is…shall we say…vulnerable to manipulation by all and sundry. Moreover, as Otago law professor Andrew Geddis has pointed out, unless political leaders have been stupid enough as to explicitly tell their own staff and/or donors that they’re aware that certain practices break the law but intend to pursue them anyway, then the law has not been broken – not by the political leaders at least... More>>


 

New Zealand Government: Action On Fuel Market Competition

The Government has released a comprehensive response to ensuring New Zealanders get a fairer deal at the petrol pump. This follows the Commerce Commission fuel market ... More>>

ALSO:

Child Poverty: 18,400 Children Lifted Out Of Poverty

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has welcomed new reporting showing the Coalition Government is on track to meet its child poverty targets, with 18,400 children lifted out of poverty as a result of the Families Package... More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On Our Unreal Optimism About Coronavirus

At this week’s Chinese New Year celebrations, PM Jacinda Ardern was resolutely upbeat that business with China would soon bounce back to normal – better than ever, even - once the coronavirus epidemic has been brought under control. To Ardern, ... More>>

ALSO:



Vaping: Government To Regulate Products

No sales to under-18-year-olds No advertising and sponsorship of vaping products and e-cigarettes No vaping or smokeless tobacco in smokefree areas Regulates vaping product safety comprehensively, - including devices, flavours and ingredients Ensure ... More>>

ALSO:


Gordon Campbell: On The Political Donations Scandals
Even paranoids have real enemies. While there has been something delusionary about the way New Zealand First has been living in denial about its donations scandal, one can sympathise with its indignation about Paula Bennett and Simon Bridges being among its chief accusers. More>>

ALSO:


 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 


 

InfoPages News Channels