Right to choose
Is there dignity in making people live against their wishes?
According to Sue Reid (letters, August 1), it is undignified for someone to receive help if they want to end their life when they are terminally ill and struggle with unbearable pain or loss of bodily functions to an unbearable level.
It is true: "Dignity does not look just one way -- dignity is in the family, that gathers or tends to their loved one, managing suffering and loss of bodily function. Dignity looks their family member in the eye."
How would you like to look your family member in the eye, when they want nothing more than to end their life and you are refusing them this last wish, just because it isn't according to your ideology, and/or is illegal?
I think that would be very selfish and, indeed, totally undignified.
For me it would be suffering on both sides: One side being the person who has to go on living, the other side the person who was not able to initiate an end to it.
I can't think of much worse, than watching a loved one in unbearable pain or suffering.
In my opinion it would be dignified to grant them this wish and be there with them, to hold their hand when they are finally free to go.
It is time to legalise end-of-life choice.
ANNE MOHRDIECK
Whanganui
My life, not yours
Wonders will never cease ... for once I agree with Steve Baron.
His comments on euthanasia in his July 28 column are probably the truest words he has ever penned.
There is no doubt that the majority of "thinking" New Zealanders are in favour of euthanasia.
However, in the other corner we have the small mob who believe they have the right to tell us how to live or end our lives.
I am sorry, but I will not accept that these deluded people (including John Malcolm, letters, August 1) can use their moral, religious or cultural beliefs to dictate the manner of my passing or that of any other person.
I must also point out to these "blinkered" do-gooders that trying to link euthanasia to suicide by people not in a terminal situation is just grandstanding.
Did John Malcolm and his ilk tell me how to live my life up to the present day? No.
Therefore he/they are not entitled to an opinion concerning the rest or end of it.
The problem in passing this legislation is that it would become a conscience vote by 120 parliamentarians with varying degrees of intelligence.
It would, by the very nature of the beast, be their personal opinion, not a reflection of their constituents' thoughts or wishes.
Obviously, List MPs' views can only be their own.
I see in the Chronicle, August 1, that the 2018 census will contain a question about mouldy homes.
If that issue is considered of such import, surely an extra couple of lines seeking an opinion on euthanasia could be added to the documents for this year's general election. Let the people speak.
D PARTNER
Eastown
Euthanasia poll
Your columnist Steve Baron shows why neither euthanasia nor assisted suicide should be legalised or put to a referendum.
His column promotes this killing and assisted killing as some kind of good thing that can be strictly controlled and only allowed in the "right" cases, which all evidence shows to be a foolish claim.
Countries that have allowed or legalised this have already gone so far as to allow such things as the killing of children, and the killing of people because they are depressed.
When it comes to the argument that it is all about "choice", i.e. that only those who choose it would be killed, both evidence and common sense refute Steve's claims.
Steve makes the point that an unprecedented number of submissions were made to the parliamentary health committee on a euthanasia bill, and leaves the reader with the impression that New Zealanders want the law changed.
Why did Steve spend so much space and effort making the point that there was "unprecedented" interest in this bill, and totally fail to mention that about 77 per cent of those submissions were opposed to a change in law?
Steve says it must be up to the people to make the law on this issue, by referendum.
There is always the problem with any democratic exercise, and especially referenda, where misinformation can be, and is, used to influence those doing the voting.
It can very easily become the tyranny of the misinformed. But there is also the question of how we have come to the view that it is all right to kill people if enough people vote in favour of the idea?
K A BENFELL
Whanganui
Too many kicks
Am I right or wrong? I believe the rugby union should consider what I have to say, but who am I?
I love my rugby, so here it is: I believe there should only be a shot at goal when a try is scored, so when the referee awards a penalty apart from a try you either have a scrum or a lineout.
In my mind there is far too much kicking in today's game, so let us all see more of what we love -- a flowing game of rugby -- and not so many penalty shots at goal.
I say cut them out full stop. You can only score points when you score a try,
GARY STEWART
Foxton Beach