Media coverage of the assisted suicide and euthanasia anniversary last week has made it clear there’s been an unfettering of any tether to balance and fairness on the issue. 

It’s been a week of “celebration” for the first anniversary of the End of Life Choice Act operating in our country and the media stories by Stuff and NZ Herald have been shocking.

Gone is the principle of fairness and balance in presenting assisted suicide and euthanasia within the context of ethical and moral conflict it deserves. Instead, we are left with emotive, glorified, sensationalised stories of people choosing to die.

It’s been a week of watching advertisements for assisted death; and its danger lies in the normalisation and social priming effect this type of coverage has on society. It’s important to take a moment to step back and assess not only the content of these articles, but also the taste, feeling and angle of them. And what they lack.

In the lead up to the 2020 election and binding referendum on the End of Life Choice Act, media outlets across the country were obligated to cover the topic of assisted suicide and euthanasia in fairness and balance. When there was a story that favoured the Act, there had to be a right of reply to those in opposition. And that principle was challengeable under the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Fairness and balance was something we fought for at #DefendNZ, and provided perspectives from well-qualified people in their respective fields; like disability advocates Claire Freeman and Dr Huhana Hickey MNZM, Lawyer Richard McLeod, and Palliative care specialist Rod MacLeod MNZM, to do so. Often the provision of sources was taken up by journalists.

But there has been a dramatic shift since the law changed. Reporting on the issue last week has revealed the floodgates have opened.

Somehow the controversy, the disagreement, and the opposing perspective has become “irrelevant” and “unnecessary”. By merely granting its legalisation, assisted suicide and euthanasia are apparently now acceptable, moral and ethical.

We’re here to say legality does not equal morality, and legality does not equal safety.

While it’s fascinating to read people’s stories about why they are either using assisted suicide and euthanasia, or facilitating it, there needs to be some analysis as to where the line between telling a story and romanticing a gruesome act is… and when that line is breached.

NZ Herald published a photo of a ute parked at a beach during a sunset across its front Sunday page on November 6 entitled, Death with a view, followed by a two-page spread featuring comments from an anonymous doctor who has been performing euthanasia, a man, Denis Davison, who decided to use it, and some facts in the most recent report summary. While there were a few sentences referring to the controversy of the legislation, the article was fully focused on those in favour.

The article says:

“In the first year since legalisation, New Zealanders have taken to voluntary euthanasia in their own way. They are choosing to die in the dunes at the beach, in their garden, in their favourite armchair, or in their bed with their labrador at their feet.”

From the doctor: No mention of pain, distress, hopelessness or despair the terminally sick person was facing before their choice to die… Just the happiness of death itself.

And from patient Denis: No mention of the conflict, disagreement or dilemma his personal GP would have faced when he was told his patient wanted to die. Merely the GP “declined to be involved”.

Shockingly, the way the article reads it’s even questionable if Denis had a solid 6-month terminal prognosis:

“The doctors consulted with his specialists, including one who had worked with Denis on his swallowing and who confirmed there was a likelihood that if he continued to contract pneumonia infections he could die within six months.”

Key words being “if” and “could”, not “has” and “will”. Yet he was granted his death wish.

Stuff published an in depth story based around euthanasia specialist Dr Stanley Koshy’s “emotional” and “rewarding” perspective of his work.

Completely sidestepping the foundational principles of medicine, Koshy says:

“Even though one of our principles is to cause no harm, in this particular instance, by inaction we’re causing harm, by causing a person a huge amount of suffering.”

A statement that reads harmless enough, unless you have an understanding of the enormity of what brushing off a foundational ethical principle in medicine implies.

Koshy’s personal interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath that’s a cornerstone in medical ethics is very much in the minority, yet it goes completely unchallenged in the article. You merely have to look at statistics around how many in the field of medicine were opposed to the EOLC Act, and it is clear – the principles of medicine are at war with what assisted suicide and euthanasia present and the majority agree. Yet without this background information Koshy’s response seems nice.

In the coming weeks #DefendNZ will be addressing some of the issues that have been glossed over and provide perspective, facts and opinions that balance and counter the one-sided reporting presented in the media thus far. It’s not about being argumentative, but allowing for a balance, fairness and giving a fuller picture of the impacts of assisted suicide and euthanasia in our country.