The Hidden Reality of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in NZ
We have been told that assisted dying is quick, painless, and dignified. But latest research on assisted dying in New Zealand conducted by University of Auckland experts shows that is not always the case.
The research, conducted by a team of eight experts, including psychologist and research fellow doctor Aida Dehkhoda, interviewed 22 health practitioners who were directly involved in assisted dying in New Zealand during the first 12 months of the law being implemented, about the process of assessing, treating, and delivering services.
The results were startling.
Our key areas of concern from the research are:
Assisted deaths are not always quick and painless.
The doctors administering the assisted deaths are unsettled and ill-equipped.
Over time, health practitioners involved appear to get a numbness, with more assisted deaths that they are involved in.
Even doctors are worried that no witnesses are required.
Doctors have spoken about how hard it is to accurately predict a 6-month prognosis and assess for coercion.
People are choosing assisted dying because they are terrified of losing control, not due to pain.
Assisted Deaths are not always quick, painless, and dignified.
One doctor interviewed in the research shared how patients taking the oral drugs (assisted suicide) were left gagging, choking, and struggling to breathe for up to 30 minutes. He said that it's the longest 15–30 minutes of your life watching someone suffer, as their body tries to reject the medication.
Alongside the shocking process of patients dying after swallowing lethal pills, practitioners also said the IV medication (euthanasia) wasn’t without drawbacks. Many experienced difficulty getting the IV access to veins due to factors like burnt or dehydrated veins as a result of prior chemo treatments, swelling due to other medications, or lack of proficiency in inserting an IV line. This left doctors with no option, than to give oral “medication” they had ordered as a backup, or having to wait for the delivery of the oral pills.
In fact, most medical practitioners who shared their experiences in the study, even those who had extensive clinical experience and had completed Assisted Dying learning modules, said they had a profound sense of unpreparedness when faced with their first assisted death. They described a lack of knowledge regarding how the medications worked and challenges with how to administer them.
The health practitioners administering the assisted deaths are unsettled and ill-equipped.
“Before an assisted death I feel quite unsettled. I don't sleep very well the night before,” one doctor said.
Medical practitioners administering Assisted Dying in New Zealand are struggling with the ethical and existential battle associated with intentionally ending someone’s life.
Medical practitioners who are administering euthanasia are trying to pacify the thoughts of unease they experience by openly sharing their fears with patients in the hope to find reassurance and validation for their actions.
They also try to reconcile their involvement in the act of causing someone’s death by engaging in ethical conversations with others, occasionally questioning whether their choices aligned with the principles they had taken an oath to uphold.
The problem is euthanasia contradicts the oath they took to "do no harm" - and many of their colleagues also do not support their actions.
“They’ve [in a hospital] put the room aside; it’s called the room of last resort. I mean, you can just tell from the language. I have a colleague about to do an assisted dying in the hospital. And the hoops they had to do, the people, people stopped them in the hallway and said, you know, I think you’re wrong. The nurses said if you come onto our ward, we won’t help you in any way! You’ll be left in that room! You know, it’s been very unpleasant.”
The practitioners also aren’t required to undergo any formal training in the “practice” of euthanasia but are left to their own devices to decide what they need to know.
“I was shocked to find that I had started an assessment with no idea what medications we were using and what doses and how to give them,” one health practitioner said.
All practitioners interviewed engaged in various learning methods, including self-directed learning through activities such as listening to podcasts, reading books and journal articles, as well as attending workshops and courses focused on topics such as competency assessment and communication skills. However, these were not compulsory.
Many noted that these resources were not detailed enough to prepare them for the assessment and delivery process.
Doctors involved appear to get a “numbness” the more assisted deaths that they are involved in.
Despite emotional and intellectual challenges and persistent pre-administration anxiety, participants concerningly described growing confidence with each case.
Many reported a crucial mindset shift—from feeling solely responsible for ending a life to recognising themselves as facilitators, enabling individuals to exercise autonomy and legally fulfil their wishes.
They also described a deep sense of gratitude and honour after each administration, feeling privileged to be part of a “deeply personal and sacred space”.
Doctors raised a concern that no witnesses are required.
“My main concern is that if a relative made an allegation about me, I would have no witnesses. Nobody to support me. You know, the only other witness I’ve just helped to die.”
A quote directly from a medical practitioner within New Zealand who has administered a deadly cocktail to intentionally kill their patient. It is something we’ve been flagging since Day 1 of the End of Life Choice Act being considered… There are NO WITNESSES REQUIRED.
We are also deeply concerned that there are no witnesses required for the safety of the patient, who may be killed against their wishes.
“In New Zealand the practice of assisted dying is largely an individual/solo practice, unlike other countries where assisted dying is usually practised in a team,” the research concludes.
This lack of safeguard is number one on our list of Six to Fix. Read more here: Six to Fix: Sign the Petition | #DefendNZ
Doctors have spoken about how hard it is to accurately predict a 6-month prognosis and assess for coercion.
Doctors involved in the research unanimously identified the requirement of having less than a six-month life expectancy as the most challenging criteria in practice for a variety of reasons.
It was perceived to be nearly impossible to accurately predict life expectancy due to the unpredictable nature of many medical conditions.
In addition, it was also stated that some terminal and progressive conditions, like neurodegenerative diseases, do not fit neatly within a six-month timeframe, but still lead to irreversible decline – and they use this as a reason for why the timeframe should be dropped altogether.
We say this is the very reason why we need a stronger eligibility criteria!
Many people live far beyond their prognosis. Having a safeguard that can easily be intentionally bent or accidentally inaccurate which will result in the approval of someone’s death does not offer protection. We do not need to drop this criteria. We must add to it.
Added to risky prognosis, the medical practitioners are assessing patients they have never previously met.
The report states the most common drawbacks mentioned by medical practitioners included challenges in establishing rapport and gaining patients’ trust within a limited number of sessions, understanding the progression of the disease and prognosis, and understanding the dynamics of the patient’s family and its influence on the request.
Practitioners even acknowledged they found it difficult to determine the authenticity of the assisted dying application as at times some applications had family members as the main point of contact, not the patient.
How would the practitioner ever assess coercion?
People are choosing assisted dying because they are terrified of losing control.
It's not about pain. It’s more about fear.
“I have found that the fear of losing control is a huge factor in this. So many of the people that I’ve worked with, their main concern has been that they have either been people who have been in excellent control of their lives. So, they’ve been bankers, lawyers and accountants, and they’ve always had a degree of control over their lives. And they find it terrifying to not be in control. And so that causes a great deal of anxiety and suffering in people.”
Health practitioners are saying that the eligibility criteria which requires them to assess unbearable suffering is entirely subjective, and is not clinically measurable.
“The subjective nature of evaluating the degree of unbearableness often results in confusion and poses challenges,” the research states. They are classifying the fear of losing control and dependence on others as unbearable suffering.
Is this really the pain and suffering we are trying to alleviate? Is death really the solution to fear?
What message are we sending our elderly, our vulnerable, those among us who have needs and are dependent on others - those we, as a society, should care for?
The Auckland University experts conducted this research with the intention to ensure “equitable and suitable service provision for the service users”. Their intention is to support its development and expansion, while we are calling for the opposite.
What they find interesting and positive, we see as shocking and horrific.
Join us in calling for improvements to this law, sign our Six to Fix petition, follow us on Facebook, Insta and X, and raise your voice to value and protect human life from conception to natural death.
Click here to read the research paper.