It is all very well for Esther Richards (Letters, August 14) to point out the current criteria outlined in the proposed euthanasia bill.
It's what will happen in the future that concerns me. Evidence from other countries that have legalised euthanasia suggest that once the door is open the criteria will change and become more liberal.
Assisted suicide becomes legalised murder and not necessarily at the request of the victim. History shows that New Zealand will be no different.
Questionable legislation that has been passed in our Parliament previously has become more liberal over time.
There is only one way to make sure the same thing doesn't happen with any proposal to legalise euthanasia in New Zealand.
Thank you Tommy Kapai Wilson for your columns that have appeared in the BOP Times over so many years. Ninety-nine per cent of the time I agree with what you are writing, very often have a laugh at some of the columns written, if not usually a smile.
Opening the flood gates
Michael Neilson's "Four Ihumātao of solutions" ( Opinion, August 13 ) all involve other people's money.
Letters: Voters are capable of deciding on a referendum
Letters: Generations of women have fought for abortion rights
Fletcher gifts it – shareholders' money, government buys it – taxpayers' money, Auckland Council buys it – ratepayers' money, the status quo – the idea is everybody's a winner except Fletcher, so again shareholders' money.
Fletcher is the legal owner and if it sold it would need to be fairly compensated.
Purchase price, holding costs, design and development costs and loss of profits. A back-of-envelope calculation puts this at around $120-$150 million.
If the Government, or Auckland Council step in to appease the protesters and give them what they want, or Fletcher is forced to sell, this could end up opening the flood gates for activists to claim any piece of private land they fancied.
All they would have to do is what they have done at Ihumātao – occupy the land, claim it has cultural significance, then demand that it be returned to its "rightful owners".
We only have to look at how the possible gifting of 11 Mission St to the Ōtamataha Trust has been claimed by Buddy Mikaere as a precedent for the Hapu to be given Kulim Park (Opinion, June 19).
Oh Lord save us all from any referendum overdose. But if we are going to have a referendum on the end of life, why are we not having one for the beginning of life?
After all, the fundamental principle is exactly the same. Are we intending to give over the sole right to an individual to end the life of another?
A G Stewart
The Bay of Plenty Times welcomes letters from readers. Please note the following:
• Letters should not exceed 200 words.
• They should be opinion based on facts or current events.
• If possible, please email.
• No noms-de-plume.
• Letters will be published with names and suburb/city.
• Please include full name, address and contact details for our records only.
• Local letter writers given preference.
• Rejected letters are not normally acknowledged.
• Letters may be edited, abridged, or rejected at the Editor's discretion.
• The Editor's decision on publication is final.