‘Care Alliance’ careless

The so-called ‘Care Alliance’ has issued a very careless press release attacking the husband of Lecretia Seals.

Matt Vickers has been attacked for considering an invitation to speak at the Euthanasia 2016 conference in Amsterdam in May.

NZ Herald: Widower of Lecretia Seales attacked for attendance at euthanasia conference

His possible attendance has been slammed by the Care Alliance, which issued a press release asking if he would now lobby for suicide pills for all over 70s.

Matthew Jansen, secretary of the group, which formed in 2012 and includes Family First NZ, Hospice New Zealand and the Salvation Army, said Mr Vickers’ attendance showed “what a slippery slope the so-called right to die really is”.

“The Dutch organisers of the conference are campaigning for everybody over the age of 70 to have access to a suicide pill as a matter of right. Will Mr Vickers be speaking for or against such a law change here?”

This is a very careless attack by Jansen, and Hospice New Zealand, Family First and the Salvation Army should be very concerned to be seen as associated with him.

Mr Jansen said he was not attacking Mr Vickers personally, but publicising the fact he had been invited to the conference, and the views of conference organisers and some attendees.

“He has allowed his name to be associated with that [Euthanasia 2016]. I am pointing out the facts.

“[Assisted dying advocates] start with the thin end of the wedge, but I think people are entitled to understand what the thick end of the wedge looks like.”

Jansen is not pointing out facts, he is making fairly despicable connections between Vickers and more extreme measures that Vickers has not had any link to.

Mr Vickers, who is writing a book about his wife’s dying quest, told the Herald that the criticism was unfortunate.

He was still deciding whether to attend the conference, but should he do so it would be “simply fallacious” to assume his attendance was an automatic endorsement of the views of organisers or attendees.

“I think in New Zealand we probably want more moderate laws, laws that are more similar to some of those in the US states, rather than some of the laws in the Netherlands and so on.

“I am interested in getting to the bottom of what is happening in the Benelux countries [Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg] — understanding more about some of the assertions from people like the Care Alliance about just how unsafe they think that these laws would be.

“It is much an understanding thing, if I do decide to go, as it is talking about Lecretia’s story.”

Mr Vickers said recent attacks from the Care Alliance and its allies were “deeply undignified, insulting to Lecretia’s memory, and unfortunately lowering the quality of the public debate”.

“That they’re resorting to such tactics indicates they must be losing faith in the quality of their arguments and their ability to debate fairly.”

It is very undignified and insulting.

Hospice New Zealand, Family First and the Salvation Army should disassociate themselves from Jansen’s attack, and possibly from Jansen altogether if he is this careless with his press releases.

We should debate euthanasia in New Zealand but Jansen isn’t doing any credit to his arguement, nor to the so called ‘Care Alliance’.

Leave a comment


  1. artcroft

     /  6th January 2016

    I read carealliance release. They simply asked if Mr Vickers was supporting suicide pills or not. I didn’t read it as anything but a mild attack on his ideas.

  2. Robbers Dog

     /  6th January 2016

    “We should debate euthanasia in New Zealand but Jansen isn’t doing any credit to his argument”

    The whole issue there Pete is that these people don’t want any debate. Like other issues around, “it is settled” in their minds so no other viewpoint, regardless of how valid need be entertained.

    • kiwi guy

       /  6th January 2016

      Yep, Cultural Marxists say they want to “start a conversation” or ‘we need to have this conversation” about any particular agenda they are pushing.

      Of course the “conversation” is them preaching to you, it is not a two way conversation.

  3. Brown

     /  6th January 2016

    I suspect this is just the start of the “debate”.

    Vickers needs to be careful he doesn’t become the poster boy for something that goes further than he supports. Dumping everyone into the same suicidal pot is dangerous when there are are so many reasons why someone may want to end their life or the life of someone who has become a burden. The old saying, “Be careful what you wish for” comes to mind – we trot out the US example of supposed superior legislation while ignoring the slippery slope of the European examples..

    • I hope Seymour’s bill gets drawn, as this is a debate NZ should have. I guess the main parties are wary of the whole topic for fear of that debate being dominated by extremists at either end. Given the way the Flag Referendum played out you can see why.

  4. Moonie01

     /  6th January 2016

    As always, they start with the “reasonable” argument and once they get the initial legislation past you soon get to the stage where a travelling killer squad can come to your home and kill you because you are “lonely”. That is now the case in Belgium and Netherlands.
    There are now only 2 palliative care facilities in Netherlands – I wonder why?

  5. I will need to see substantive evidence of Moonie01’s claim too, along with Brown’s insinuation, “someone may want to end their life or the life of someone who has become a burden” Put simply, iIt doesn’t work like that.

    Even if it does in some places – which I will not believe without credible evidence – New Zealand need only confine our discussions to places where Death with Dignity is working well, such as Oregon in the USA.


    Notable in FAQs is –

    Q: Can a patient’s family members request participation in the Act on behalf of the patient (for example, in cases where the patient is comatose)?
    A: No. (Note the word “No”) The law requires that the patient ask to participate voluntarily on his or her own behalf. (Indeed, they must ask verbally, twice, at least 2 weeks apart)

    Q: Does the Act allow euthanasia?
    A: No. Euthanasia is a different procedure for hastening death. In euthanasia, a doctor injects a patient with a lethal dosage of medication. In the Act, a physician prescribes a lethal dose of medication to a patient, but the patient – not the doctor – administers the medication. Euthanasia is illegal in every state in the U.S., including Oregon. The Act has been legal in Oregon since November 1997.

    I was very concerned to hear recently that the chairperson of the Select Committee of Inquiry into Assisted Dying, MP Simon O’Connor, who trained as a Catholic Priest, said, “I do not support the killing of another human being. Suicide is never the answer to any problem. It is not the solution for a teenager, a farmer, a depressed person or someone with a terminal illness”.

    Here’s the same sort of biased ignorance right there at the heart of a government investigation being conducted on our behalf. Perhaps the outcome is pre-determined?

    • Robbers Dog

       /  6th January 2016

      Good points as this is how many see it working here PartisanZ, myself included.

      It is worth pointing out also that one of the drivers for debate/legislation is the absolving of medical practitioners from the Crimes Act for their role, however indirect in assisting a patients passing even under the current methods of palliative care.

      Why did Andrew Little make Iain Lees-Galloway drop it from the ballot?

      • It wasn’t seen as a Labour priority.

        But Mr Little confirmed yesterday that he had told Mr Lees-Galloway not to put it in the ballot because it was not an issue Labour should be focused on when it was rebuilding.

        “It comes down to priorities at the moment,” Mr Little said. “We are very much focused on … jobs and economic security.

        “There are more people affected by weak labour market regulation and weak economic strategy than they are about the right to make explicit choices about how they die.”

        Mr Little said Labour was still a socially progressive party under his leadership.

        “It’s not about avoiding controversy but it’s about choosing the controversies that are best for us at this point in time. That stuff on euthanasia, it isn’t the time for us to be talking about that.”


        • More fools Labour, but that’s becoming a daily saying here isn’t it?

          Not so much bricks in the wall as nails in the coffin maybe?

          Give the kudos to ‘nemisis’ David Seymour.

        • kiwi guy

           /  6th January 2016

          You mean it is too controversial and extremist like the “the accusation is the evidence” approach in rape crimes the man haters in Labour were ( probably still are ) pushing.

    • You say “New Zealand need only confine our discussions to places where Death with Dignity is working well, such as Oregon in the USA.”

      I disagree. We will get a very pre-determined outcome if that is limit of our research. The Netherlands offers euthanasia only for the terminally ill, while Belgium allows the chronically depressed the option of euthanasia over other types of treatment.

      If we are to have this debate we have to be aware of all the possible steps and paths ahead of us. Including the slippery ones.

      • Very difficult to find anything that looks remotely like impartial information about Belgium in particular. In my yahoo.search, aside from the actual Act [pdf] and Wiki, the rest are unreliable looking alarmist anti-euthanasia diatribes. Check out the list of articles on here –


        and sure enough – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Task_Force_on_Euthanasia_and_Assisted_Suicide

        “In January 2011, The International Task Force – who “oppose the legalization of euthanasia” – changed its name to The Patients Rights Council”.

        Even an article here – http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/04/12/euthanasia-in-belgium-doctors-hasten-the-death-of-1000-non-consenting-patients-a-year/ – cites a paper from the New England Journal of Medicine and the reporting of it is dubious at best. From an increase in assisted dying – possibly a natural consequence of familiarity with the law – it does not necessarily follow that “Belgian doctors deliberately “hasten the death” of patients “without an explicit request” at a rate of 1.7% of all deaths in the country”.

        IT DOES NOT FOLLOW and they do not prove it. Indeed, later in the very same article the paper is quoted as saying, “Reasons for the dramatic rise comprise both increases in the number of requests (from 3.5 to 6.0% of deaths) and the proportion of requests granted (from 56.3 to 76.8% of requests made)”. In other words, NOT without an explicit request.

        NEJM is the organ of the American Medical Association which “opposes both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide”

        Okay, it’s a big scarey issue, worth discussing fully. It’s not going to be easy to sort the wheat from the chaff on this one but it needs to be rigourously sorted. Why? Because those who don’t want Death with Dignity don’t have to make use of it!

        For me, scarey is the prospect of a prolonged terminal illness where there is “unbearable suffering” and no chance of recovery.

        NETHERLANDS – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands

        Under current Dutch law, euthanasia by doctors is only legal in cases of “hopeless and unbearable” suffering. In practice this means that it is limited to those suffering from serious medical conditions like severe pain, exhaustion or asphyxia. Helping somebody to commit suicide without meeting the qualifications of the current Dutch euthanasia law is illegal.

        BELGIUM – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia#Belgium

        The Belgian parliament legalised euthanasia on 28 May 2002.[4][5]

        A survey published in 2010 reported that those who died from euthanasia (compared with other deaths) were more often younger, male, cancer patients and more often died in their homes. In almost all cases, unbearable physical suffering were reported. Euthanasia for nonterminal patients was rare.[6][7] There have been about 1,400 cases a year since the law was introduced, and a record 1,807 cases were recorded in 2013.[8][9]

        In December 2013, the Belgian Senate voted in favour of extending its euthanasia law to terminally ill children. Conditions imposed on children seeking euthanasia are that “the patient must be conscious of their decision and understand the meaning of euthanasia”, “the request must have been approved by the child’s parents and medical team”, “their illness must be terminal” and “they must be in great pain, with no available treatment to alleviate their distress”.[10] A psychologist must also determine the patient’s maturity to make the decision. The amendment emphasizes that the patient’s request be voluntary.[11]

  6. Matt Vickers is way to smart to get sucked into a ploy like this one from Jansen. And maybe its not even a ploy by Jansen but more a media slanting to create buzz at a time of the year when the normal loons in parliament are away on holidays….

    The debate on this topic is desperately needed. Anyone who has nursed a terminal family member, and yes I have, knows we need to discuss this topic openly honestly and in a calm manner.

    Matt is a sensible, intelligent and articulate individual. I am glad a guy of his quality is fronting on this debate – though I am sure he would prefer not to have arrived in this situation as the journey to this point must have been pure hell….

    Disclaimer: I am a fence sitter on assisted dying. I see the pros and cons.

  7. Moonie01

     /  6th January 2016

    Pretty hard to avoid with a simple Google search. The Internet is full of references.

  8. kiwi guy

     /  6th January 2016

    “extreme measures that Vickers has not had any link to.”

    But he does have a link, he is rocking on up to the party hosted by characters who want to throw suicide pills at 70yo like candy.

    If Pete says we need lots of muslims in NZ and went along to an ISIS hosted event, wouldn’t that reflect on Pete?

  9. kiwi guy

     /  6th January 2016

    If Progressive and Diversity(TM) partisanZ advocates free tax payer dildos for everyone and accepts an invite to a seminar by the NZ Men Boys Lovers Association to talk about it, doesn’t that reflect on partisanZ?


Leave a Reply to Pete George Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: