Category: Media releases

Source: Family First

Disturbing Data In Latest “Assisted Dying” Report

Media Release: 5 September 2024

The latest review of assisted suicide / euthanasia was quietly released last month by the Ministry of Health – but it should sound significant and loud warning bells about the law, especially at a time when proponents want it to be liberalised even further.

Family First has analysed the Registrar (assisted dying) Annual Report June 2024. Key findings include:

• 5% increase in assisted deaths in the last 12 months. [2022 66 (5 mnths), 2023 328, 2024 344]
• 11% increase in applications.
• 83% NZ European/Pākehā. Pasifika <0.5%. Māori <4%. Asian 2%. Other 12%.
• 60% aged 65-84. 19% 85+. 19% 45-64.
• Virtually even split between male and female.
• 12% of applicants had a disability.
• 258 applicants died before ‘needing’ euthanasia.
• The application process averages only 16 days.
• Less than 7% of applicants are for neurological conditions (such as Huntington’s Disease).

What is most disturbing is that one in four applicants weren’t receiving palliative care. The End of Life Choice Act only provides a ‘right’ to one choice – premature death. There is no corresponding right to palliative care. Good palliative care and hospice services are resource intensive; euthanasia would be cheaper. As has also been observed overseas, notably in Canada, there is a new element of ‘financial calculation’ into decisions about end-of-life care. This is harsh reality. At an individual level, the economically disadvantaged who don’t have access to better healthcare could feel pressured to end their lives because of the cost factor or because other better choices are not available to them. Some hospitals have no specialist palliative care services at all.

The NZ Herald recently reported: “A specialist paediatric palliative care (PPC) doctor says New Zealand is falling behind other nations in its care of terminally ill children and the Government must step up to help.” And the demand for this specialist medical care will only increase significantly in the near future. Our population is ageing, and therefore the number of people requiring palliative care is forecast to increase by approximately 25% over the next 15 years and will be more than double that by 2061.

Previous Governments have made little effort to address this growing problem and to increase funding for palliative care, and essential service. Euthanasia is instead given priority and full Government funding.

The other significant red flag in the report is that just 1% of applicants had a psychiatric assessment to check for both competence to make the decision, and for any presence of coercion. 99% of applicants were not assessed for these.

That so few patients are referred raises serious questions around the competency of doctors involved in euthanasia, and also implies either key psychological signs are being ignored – or missed.

Many patients who are facing death or battling an irreversible, debilitating disease are depressed at some point. However, many people with depression who request euthanasia overseas revoke that request if their depression and pain are satisfactorily treated. If euthanasia or assisted suicide is approved, many patients who would have otherwise traversed this dark, difficult phase and gone on to find meaning in their remaining months of life will die prematurely.

The unspoken reality is also that terminally ill people are vulnerable to direct and indirect pressure from family, caregivers and medical professionals, as well as self-imposed pressure. They may come to feel euthanasia would be ‘the right thing to do’; they’ve ‘had a good innings’ and do not want to be a ‘burden’ to their nearest and dearest. It is virtually impossible to detect subtle emotional coercion, let alone overt coercion, at the best of times.

This latest data simply confirms that nothing in the law guarantees the protection required for vulnerable people facing their death, including the disabled, elderly, depressed or anxious, and those who feel themselves to be a burden or who are under financial pressure.

Family First is also deeply concerned by comments by Associate Minister of Health David Seymour who is overseeing the review of the law. He recently stated on RNZ:

“The statutory review is being the Ministry of Health right now. I believe, without pre-empting what it will say, that it will give a lot of weight to making change.” 

It is deeply disturbing that a Minister would campaign and potentially unduly influence an independent review with this type of commentary.

It’s time we focused on and fully funded world-class palliative care – and not a lethal injection.

We can live without euthanasia.

DOWNLOAD OUR FACT SHEET ON THE LAW https://familyfirst.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Euthanasia-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Source: Family First

MEDIA RELEASE – 1 September 2024

110+ Children / Teens Change Birth Certificate

Children are changing the sex on their birth certificate since the new law came into force on 15 June last year, including 47 children 15 years or younger. Some 16/17 year olds have done it without parental / guardian consent.

Almost 900 people in total have changed their birth certificates to their ‘self-identified gender’.

According to Official Information Act data gained by Family First from the Department of Internal Affairs, the number of people who have changed their gender on their NZ birth certificate in the first year of the new law is:

15 & under       47

16 / 17                66

18+                   776

TOTAL              889

Two teenagers in the 16/17 age group have made the change without parental consent – instead relying on a letter of support from a “suitably qualified third party” (which is undefined).

Demand to be recognised as a female was greatest with 445, followed by male 302, and non-binary 142.

There is no limit to the number of times you can change the gender on your birth certificate. Ironically, you can reapply to revert to the sex recorded at birth.

In the 2001 Select Committee report it said:

• “it is important to allow the sex markers to be prescribed by regulation, rather than primary legislation. This would allow them to be more easily reviewed and updated as understanding of sex and gender changes over time.”
• “We believe that people should be allowed to amend their registered sex more than once, to reflect that gender can be fluid for some people.”
• “It is possible that a 16- or 17-year-old may not receive guardian consent. In our view, this should not be the end of the process… We think that providing a reasonable alternative to guardian consent is important for young people who may not have guardians willing to support them in amending their sex.”
• For children 15 years or younger, a health professional’s recommendation is no longer required either. Just a parent and a “third party”.
• Who can be a “third party”? Could be “have known the applicant for a period of time” but “wide enough to provide applicants with a reasonable level of choice”.
• “Some submitters were concerned that a self-identification process would have an adverse effect on women’s sport. We take a different view.”
• “The information on a birth certificate alone is not definitive evidence of a person’s sex.”
• “We agree that requiring someone to declare that they intend to “live as” a person of the nominated sex is problematic. Inadvertently, this could be perceived as enshrining sexist stereotypes in law depending on a person’s view of what it means to “live as” a person of a particular sex.” Those clauses are now removed (“intend to live as a person of the nominated sex”)

In a touch of massive irony, the Select Committee inadvertently confirmed why the ‘conversion therapy’ law should also have been binned, and why parental notification for teen abortions, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone treatment should be mandated.

“We think that the difference between a 16- or 17-year-old and a child is their competence in making important decisions with significant consequences. We think it is important to retain a guardian’s responsibilities for their child’s development and helping their child to understand and make important decisions. This is why we think consent from a guardian must be required if a child under 16 wants to amend their registered sex… we are not confident that all children from age 12 to 15 have adequate competence to make important decisions.”

“By choosing your own gender in your birth certificate, the certificates have become an object of unscientific gender ideology and effectively tells medical professionals that they got it wrong at time of birth. Circumstances may change but a historical document should not be able to be changed,” says Bob McCoskrie, CEO of Family First NZ.

“Binary is the only gender story there is amongst humanity when it comes to gender and sex-distinction. There simply are not many genders. But of course, there are many different ways to be a healthy male or female without holding to narrow gender stereotypes. Human sexuality is a dichotomy, not a continuum.”

“It is to Parliament’s shame that they voted to distort biological reality.”

READ MORE ON THE NEW LAW: www.BirthCertificates.nz

Source: Family First

A petition calling for ‘woman’ to be defined as ‘an adult human female’ in all our laws, public policies and regulations and signed by more than 23,500 people is being presented to Parliament today.

The What is a woman? petition will be received by Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of NZ First Winston Peters and NZ First MP Tanya Unkovich.

An appropriate bill would state that:

• an individual’s “sex” means an individual’s sex at birth, either male or female;
  ● a “female” means an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova; who has, had, will have or would have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident, the reproductive system that at some point produces, transports, and utilizes eggs for fertilization.
  ● a “male” means an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilise the ova of a female who has, had, will have or would have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident, the reproductive system that at some point produces, transports, and utilizes sperm for fertilization.;
  ● “woman” and “girl” refer to human females, and “man” and “boy” refer to human males;
  ● “mother” means a parent of the female sex, and “father” means a parent of the male sex; and
  ● with respect to biological sex, separate accommodations are not inherently unequal.

The bill would require and state that distinctions between the sexes be considered substantially related to the important governmental objectives of protecting the health, safety, and privacy of individuals, with respect to the following areas: ● schools; ● sports; ● prisons or other detention facilities; ● domestic violence centers; ● rape crisis centers; ● changing rooms; ● toilets; and ● other areas where biology, safety, or privacy are implicated that result in separate accommodations.

Individuals born with a medically verifiable diagnosis of disorder/differences in sex development should be provided appropriate legal protections.

How do we target specific women’s health issues or target the gender pay gap, or violence against women, or support the Women’s Refuge, or uphold our nation’s history of fighting for women’s rights if we can’t define the target audience in the first place?

A ’woman’ always has been, always will be, our beloved mothers, grandmothers, wives, daughters, sisters, aunts – an adult human female. It is disappointing that a law is now required to confirm something so straight-forward in the past, but which is now needed as society detaches itself from truth.