There a strict measures to ensure only the terminally ill can gain cover of this act. Photo / File
There a strict measures to ensure only the terminally ill can gain cover of this act. Photo / File
Arguing for death with dignity
Re letters from F R Halpin (August 31) and K A Benfell (September 1): Are they for real or do they live on another planet? Halpin says policemen/women are enforcing the biblical 10 Commandments - really?
As a former policeman I can honestly say Inever gave a thought to the Bible when enforcing the law of New Zealand.
Then Benfell talks about an overpopulated world and the current Death with Dignity Bill as a tool to reduce that figure. That's weird to say that when Benfell could say that Covid-19 seems to be doing a far better job than Death with Dignity would ever do.
To quote Sir Michael Cullen, who backs euthanasia, "It offers to people like me the chance of finishing the life I have enjoyed so much in a way consistent with my moral beliefs and my sense of dignity of human life."
I would guess Benfell and Halpin hold strong Christian beliefs and that is fine with me.
I and others in this world have given them that choice, but in many parts of this world those beliefs are banned, in fact many Christians are killed or maimed daily for holding their views.
They are lucky they have been given that choice, Death with Dignity only asks for the same choice to terminate a very limited number of terminally ill people in the late stages of their lives.
These are people who don't want to end their lives in a near comatose state on morphine with loss of body functions. There a strict measures in place to ensure only the terminally ill can gain cover of this act.
I think K A Benfell (Letters, August 31) captures my "idea" well in his description of the notion that freedom of speech, as a basic tenet of democracy, can be upheld as a kind of sanction and justification for some to say whatever they have an inclination to, regardless of the damaging consequences to some others.
But no, he is wrong in asserting I want to restrict freedom of speech for those who use that right and privilege responsibly because those that don't can often inflict far more wide-ranging damage than simply hurting someone's feelings as stated by Mr Benfell.
Such damaging verbal inflictions, of which hate speech is an example, can indeed further the oppression of some individuals and groups so that their freedoms are very much compromised in many instances.
I am supporting greater responsibility for usage of the power of the word, not seeking to take away freedoms, but with those rights, am urging an awareness that others' freedoms are often at stake with the abuse of that right which must be remembered, is also a privilege.
PAUL BABER Whanganui
Your letters.
Original sin
Christians are taught the doctrine of "original sin", according to which we are all "born in sin" as a result of Adam and Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden.
But in his letter (September 1), K A Benfell says that "it is absurd to claim that killing an innocent human is somehow pro-life".
