Arguments about assisted dying are ridiculous
As a 91-year-old, I find the arguments about assisted dying ridiculous.
I can remember as an 8-year-old, when my grandmother died, the family reporing that, ‘‘The doctor gave her something’’. That sort of thing was so common that nobody gave any thought to it. It was, of course, a time when many people died at home.
To me as an old person, it seems eminently sensible not to have persons lingering in pain. If it is obvious that you are going to go, why linger on?
That’s my observation and I only hope when it comes to my turn in that situation someone will be merciful to me. There will be no blame attached to them from me and I ama practising Christian. KATHLEEN M HENDERSON
Wainoni
Prefer to choose
I take issue with some of the points Dr Worthington makes in his letter (June 9).
I feel he, along with other correspondents, is missing the essence of just what it is that Lecretia Seales and others seek as they approach the end of their life.
As a fellow medical practitioner with nearly 30 years experience in palliative care I think he is confusing dying free of unpleasant symptoms (such as nausea and pain) with dying with dignity. They are not the same thing.
Dignity in death is an entirely personal assessment that others usually cannot make on our behalf. It certainly has nothing to do with ‘‘new technologies or extensive pharmaceuticals’’.
The debate has never been about the amazing support and exemplary care that palliative care teams throughout New Zealand provide in so many ways, but is about the fact that many of us do not choose to die at the end of a time where we may have been semiconscious, confused, perhaps incontinent and dependent on others, albeit nicely free of pain and nausea.
Some of us would prefer to choose the time to bid farewell to our terminal illness with friends, a glass of riesling and some Mozart on the stereo and all New Zealanders should be allowed to legally have that sort of choice. VAUGHAN LEIGH
St Albans
No guarantee
Good palliative care is not enough (J Worthington, June 9). Anyone who has watched a loved one slowly die knows this.
Pain is not the only misery to be endured. Some terminally people are incontinent and have to watch as their mess is cleaned up by others. Some cannot enjoy food without choking and vomiting. Some cannot move or speak. Some know that they are sliding inexorably into dementia. Others are blind and deaf.
For all of these there is complete loss of independence and complete loss of those personal attributes and enthusiasms which made life worth living. Little if anything of their real selves is left. As the law stands they are condemned to endure indefinitely, irrespective of the end they may crave..
Who of us, if we are honest, would choose to end our lives like this? As it stands palliative care is no guarantee of "death with dignity". There is an urgent need of a law change so that those of us who are terminally ill may choose the time and manner of our death. GLEN METCALF
Mt Pleasant
Don’t presume
Whilst I amnot against euthanasia in some circumstances, I strongly counsel against any presumption that dementia patients, or people in a similar situation, would wish to die, given the free choice.
My mother had severe dementia for 14-odd years – well into her 90s – yet was generally very happy in her own way. She would never have chosen euthanasia.
My father had a debilitating stroke in his mid-80s which caused partial paralysis and loss of his ability to talk. Yet when it was suggested to him that he may rather ‘‘go’’ he produced a very fierce "no". He clung determinedly to life until he passed away from pneumonia and even then he fought that every step of the way. ELLA HARRIS
Riccarton
Waiting lists
Regarding the article ‘‘Waiting list behind the hospital waiting list’’ (June 10).
The health reforms of the 1990s introduced official rationing of nonurgent hospital treatment and created an increasing quantum of unmet need for such treatment. This was achieved by establishing barriers to the process by which patients are referred to hospital, assessed by specialists and finally admitted for treatment. Over the years the number and complexity of these barriers has increased.
It is pleasing to see that the Government has now accepted that there is a serious problem with unmet need for such non-urgent hospital care and that the size of the problem needs to be measured. In order to do so in a useful way, however, the methodology needs to be scientifically valid and objective.
The method proposed by the Minister of Health will not meet either of these criteria. First, it will only measure part of the unmet need referred by GPs to hospitals; it will not address the large amount of such need residing unseen in the community. Second, it will be run by the Ministry of Health and district health boards who will be measuring and reporting on their own performances. This would be akin to asking candidates for an examination to set their own exam questions and mark their own answer papers.
Unmet need for non-urgent hospital treatment is a serious problem that should be measured in a thorough and independent way, so the results will have credibility and lead to appropriate and constructive solutions.
PHIL BAGSHAW Chair, Canterbury Charity Hospital Trust