Only 20% of #NZ adults knew that the #EndofLifeChoiceAct *isn't* about turning off machines that are keeping people alive.
Read our media release at https://t.co/r8yxB1gHjW
"when I tick NO, I will be thinking of my childhood friend #LecretiaSeales who, after suffering a terminal brain tumour became an advocate for physician-#assisteddying – and how people like her deserve a BETTER, STRONGER, CLEARER Act."-Vanessa Kururangi
https://t.co/EYQgkBIL15
@ebryantnz @JessYoungTweets This thread also includes misinformation about the EOLC Act and misrepresents the Votesafe campaign. Best to verify claims at the source before judging! The Act is at https://t.co/5cDNwzhfWf. Votesafe claims with references at https://t.co/nXb8xLc1ha
@JessYoungTweets No, this is misinformation. The two witnesses safeguard is required in the US, Australia & Canada. These laws *also* require 2 doctors + person to be told about options & to confirm that they want to proceed. Australian laws added independent witness at the death.
@JessYoungTweets Misleading. Consent consists of verbal request confirmed in writing (s 12). The Act requires person to be told once (section 11) that they can change their mind at any time, but requires the person to be asked *once* if they want to proceed (s 20) - not "at every stage".
@JessYoungTweets Misleading. Attorney-General said the age limit is discriminatory & open to challenge. 111 out of 114 SOPs, many common-sense, were voted down, mostly without debate & with most MPs absent. At 3rd Reading MPs criticized the "abysmal process" of the Bill going through Parliament.
@JessYoungTweets@Giggly_Jordan@DrLynziA No, Votesafe isn't saying "no parental consent". It says "no parental knowledge" i.e. notification. The Act doesn't require a person to tell loved ones. (S 11(2)(f)). In the case of an 18 year-old, there'd be no requirement to notify their parents. https://t.co/nXb8xLc1ha
@lipsmakdelishus @NZQandA We're not voting on whether people should suffer. We're not even voting on whether euthanasia should be legal. We're voting on a specific piece of legislation that leaves out safeguards that have been in overseas laws for 20+ yrs.
@lipsmakdelishus @NZQandA It's legal for people to end their own lives and legal to stop life-prolonging medical interventions.
As Alfred Ngaro said, this Act is about giving the State the legal power to authorise the killing of some of its citizens. A paradigm shift. Power that could easily be abused.
@beckonbalance@NZQandA People who don't choose it will also be affected. this Act would create an incentive for future governments and DHBs to refuse expensive treatments to people who may become eligible for euthanasia. It could easily end up taking choices away from people who want to live.
@fmacskasy @NZQandA Everyone will die regardless. A person who is coerced would die prematurely and possibly also without peace of mind. People with terminal illnesses can recover & even if they don't, they can be supported to enjoy their last chapter.
@Deafabs @NZQandA Sorry to hear about the suffering in your family. 😢 You wouldn't be eligible under the Act if your only reason would be deafness. You would need to have a terminal illness that is expected to end your life within 6 months..
@fmacskasy @NZQandA Vicki Walsh has stated elsewhere that she respects an individual's right to choose. The referendum isn't about people's personal preferences, but whether this particular Act is robust & safe for all NZ.
@TryLaughingL8r@NZQandA Sorry to hear about your grandma's suffering and death. We understand that fluid is usually withdrawn because the person has become to frail to assimilate it and fluids would actually cause more suffering. Might this have been the case?
@NZQandA Could you please correct the factual errors stated in this programme about the Act? Only the first doctor in the process needs to check whether the person is pressured and only this doctor needs to stop the process if pressure is suspected. This doctor doesn't need to be a GP.