Health Ministry Losing Count Of Euthanasia Deaths
Family First is appalled to see that the Ministry of Health has once again erroneously reported euthanasia numbers in New Zealand including one quarter where the number of deaths nearly doubled.
'This raises significant concerns about the upcoming review of the law and whether it will be based on actual quantifiable and credible evidence,' says Bob McCoskrie, CEO of Family First.
Reviewing recent quarterly reports from 2024, there are so far two instances where numbers have changed substantially – in one case, nearly doubling the numbers of those euthanised. In the third quarter of 2024 (01/07/2024 to 30/09/2024) the number of deaths leapt up from 73 to 129; an increase of 77%! In the quarter prior (01/04/2024 to 30/06/2024) the number of deaths was revised down from 126 deaths to 108 deaths.
'The Ministry appears to have no idea what is going on. Whether the number of deaths each quarter are being revised up or down, the system is failing to account for what is happening and consequently it is impossible for anyone to argue the system is operating safely.'
Family First has previously raised safety concerns around how the euthanasia system is working in New Zealand, including reported numbers not aligning. There were also concerns from whistleblowers within the End of Life Choice Review committee pointing out that they were being denied access to information and that doctors' written accounts of deaths varied from what they described in voice.
'If the Ministry can't even count the numbers correctly, how on earth can New Zealander have any confidence that the euthanasia system is working safely. Are they getting the criteria correct that patients must meet. What else are they missing?' asks Mr McCoskrie.
That the Ministry is also updating its reports quietly and with no public notification or acknowledgement of what has changed is also a red flag.
'The Ministry's willingness to try and sweep such changes under the carpet indicates a system that is neither safe, transparent, or accountable,' said Mr McCoskrie.
Family First is calling on government to intervene immediately in the interest of public safety. In particular, the recent review of the End of Life Choice law clearly needs to be independently reviewed and revised. Not only is this review based on wrong numbers and trends, but also written by the same Ministry who continue to publish false data.
'Dead or alive, the Ministry seems to have no idea.'
Family First is also deeply concerned by comments by Associate Minister of Health David Seymour who is overseeing the review of the law. He stated in a media interview last year: 'The statutory review is being the Ministry of Health right now. I believe, without pre-empting what it will say, that it will give a lot of weight to making change."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Rights Aotearoa Demands Urgent Re-evaluation Of Regulatory Standards Bill's Human Rights Impact
Press Release – Rights Aotearoa Leading Human Rights NGO Calls Ministry of Justice Assessment 'Dangerously Superficial' and 'Constitutionally Incoherent' WELLINGTON, 4 June 2025 – Rights Aotearoa, New Zealand's leading NGO devoted to promoting and defending universal human rights, today called on Attorney-General Judith Collins KC to urgently instruct the Ministry of Justice to comprehensively re-evaluate its advice on the Regulatory Standards Bill's consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Ministry's advice concluded that the Bill 'appears to be consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act.' Rights Aotearoa has delivered a detailed letter to the Attorney-General demonstrating that this conclusion represents a grave failure of constitutional analysis that ignores the Bill's fundamental threat to human rights, democracy, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 'The Ministry of Justice has failed in its constitutional duty to assess this Bill's impact on human rights properly,' said Paul Thistoll, CEO of Rights Aotearoa. 'Their analysis acknowledges that the Bill departs from how rights and freedoms are expressed in the Bill of Rights Act, yet inexplicably concludes it has no impact on those rights. This is constitutionally incoherent.' Rights Aotearoa's analysis identifies multiple critical failures in the Ministry's assessment. The Ministry examined only one right superficially—freedom of expression—while ignoring clear conflicts with electoral rights, freedom from discrimination, minority rights, and the right to life. The advice fails entirely to consider how the Bill's mechanisms will create 'regulatory chill,' deterring future governments from enacting essential protections. Of particular concern is the Ministry's failure to analyse the Bill's complete exclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, despite the Waitangi Tribunal's findings that the Crown breached Treaty principles through inadequate consultation with Māori and its recommendation for an 'immediate halt' to the Bill's progress. The organisation highlighted how the Bill's emphasis on property rights and narrow economic efficiency will systematically undermine anti-discrimination protections. Essential measures like disability accommodations, pay equity legislation, and protections against discrimination could be challenged as 'impairing' property rights. 'This Bill creates a competing quasi-constitutional framework that elevates property rights above all other human rights,' the letter states. 'It attempts to lock in a narrow ideological worldview that will bind future Parliaments.' Rights Aotearoa has committed to filing an action in the High Court, should the Bill pass in its current form, seeking a declaration that it is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The organisation calls on the Attorney-General to instruct the Ministry of Justice to conduct a comprehensive re-evaluation that accurately analyses the Bill's downstream effects on all rights, considers its practical operation, examines the constitutional implications of creating a parallel rights framework, evaluates the exclusion of Te Tiriti, and assesses the impacts on anti-discrimination protections. 'At this critical constitutional moment, New Zealanders deserve rigorous, honest analysis of how this Bill will affect their fundamental rights,' said Thistoll. 'The current advice is not merely inadequate—it's dangerously misleading.' About Rights Aotearoa Rights Aotearoa is Aotearoa New Zealand's leading non-governmental organisation dedicated to promoting and defending universal human rights. Although we have a focus on transgender, non-binary and intersex rights, we work to ensure that all people in New Zealand enjoy the full range of human rights and fundamental freedoms recognised in domestic and international law.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Rights Aotearoa Demands Urgent Re-evaluation Of Regulatory Standards Bill's Human Rights Impact
WELLINGTON, 4 June 2025 – Rights Aotearoa, New Zealand's leading NGO devoted to promoting and defending universal human rights, today called on Attorney-General Judith Collins KC to urgently instruct the Ministry of Justice to comprehensively re-evaluate its advice on the Regulatory Standards Bill's consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Ministry's advice concluded that the Bill "appears to be consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act." Rights Aotearoa has delivered a detailed letter to the Attorney-General demonstrating that this conclusion represents a grave failure of constitutional analysis that ignores the Bill's fundamental threat to human rights, democracy, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. "The Ministry of Justice has failed in its constitutional duty to assess this Bill's impact on human rights properly," said Paul Thistoll, CEO of Rights Aotearoa. "Their analysis acknowledges that the Bill departs from how rights and freedoms are expressed in the Bill of Rights Act, yet inexplicably concludes it has no impact on those rights. This is constitutionally incoherent." Rights Aotearoa's analysis identifies multiple critical failures in the Ministry's assessment. The Ministry examined only one right superficially—freedom of expression—while ignoring clear conflicts with electoral rights, freedom from discrimination, minority rights, and the right to life. The advice fails entirely to consider how the Bill's mechanisms will create "regulatory chill," deterring future governments from enacting essential protections. Advertisement - scroll to continue reading Of particular concern is the Ministry's failure to analyse the Bill's complete exclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, despite the Waitangi Tribunal's findings that the Crown breached Treaty principles through inadequate consultation with Māori and its recommendation for an "immediate halt" to the Bill's progress. The organisation highlighted how the Bill's emphasis on property rights and narrow economic efficiency will systematically undermine anti-discrimination protections. Essential measures like disability accommodations, pay equity legislation, and protections against discrimination could be challenged as "impairing" property rights. "This Bill creates a competing quasi-constitutional framework that elevates property rights above all other human rights," the letter states. "It attempts to lock in a narrow ideological worldview that will bind future Parliaments." Rights Aotearoa has committed to filing an action in the High Court, should the Bill pass in its current form, seeking a declaration that it is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The organisation calls on the Attorney-General to instruct the Ministry of Justice to conduct a comprehensive re-evaluation that accurately analyses the Bill's downstream effects on all rights, considers its practical operation, examines the constitutional implications of creating a parallel rights framework, evaluates the exclusion of Te Tiriti, and assesses the impacts on anti-discrimination protections. "At this critical constitutional moment, New Zealanders deserve rigorous, honest analysis of how this Bill will affect their fundamental rights," said Thistoll. "The current advice is not merely inadequate—it's dangerously misleading." About Rights Aotearoa Rights Aotearoa is Aotearoa New Zealand's leading non-governmental organisation dedicated to promoting and defending universal human rights. Although we have a focus on transgender, non-binary and intersex rights, we work to ensure that all people in New Zealand enjoy the full range of human rights and fundamental freedoms recognised in domestic and international law.
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Advocacy group calls for removal of funeral directors as cremation middleman
Photo: 123rf An advocacy group wants to see funeral directors removed as the middleman in cremations, saying it's costing people money. Death Without Debt spokesperson Fergus Wheeler explained two doctors were required to sign off on a death for cremation - the first would have seen the body and made notes about the cause of death, and a second doctor was required sign-off on that paperwork. Currently, the system was set up so that people needed a funeral director to facilitate this second sign-off, with funeral directors billing the family for doing so - but legally, it did not have to be done this way. Wheeler said a small tweak to the Ministry of Health's existing online death documents system could fix this, ideally allowing the first doctor's paperwork to be uploaded to the cloud to be checked by the second doctor, without the need for the funeral director to forward it on. He said the cloud already existed, it just required a change of process. "You can if you understand the medical referee system, sometimes, if you're lucky, get through the system," Wheeler said. "But 99.9 percent of the public have no idea how the system works." As well as giving funeral directors permission to charge a service fee for this administration task, it also gave them the opportunity to "hook people into a package deal", charging grieving families for things they did not need. The Funeral Directors Association strongly denied this allegation to the select committee. With cremations now making up 80 percent of deaths - in part because the cost was still a lot less than a burial - Wheeler said this affected a lot of people. "We don't blame the funeral industry particularly for this," Wheeler said. "It's actually the Ministry of Health [who have] known that the system has been dysfunctional for decades." The Health Select Committee's final report into funeral debt was released last week. In it, it agreed that "the current process and regulations impose high costs on the public and create a barrier for people who want to organise their own funerals, particularly when their loved ones are about to be cremated". It encouraged the ministry to prioritise further work on updating the cremation regulations, and requested a report on the planned changes to regulations before the end of this parliamentary term. "We also encourage the ministry to consider making all documents relating to cremation available on the Death Documents website. We note that the Ministry's planned work could address the current barriers to DIY funerals." But Wheeler said those directives to the ministry were weak and lacked urgency. "You've got a pretty major social problem with funeral debt happening, and the Health Select Committee have said, well, let's fix it sometime in the next few years. It's not quick enough, it's not urgent enough," he said. The Funeral Directors Association, which represents about 75 percent of funeral homes, was approached for comment by the select committee, and its comments were included in the final report. According to the report, it "strongly refuted what it described as Death Without Debt's 'allegations of predatory behaviour' on the part of funeral homes, and said that, on the contrary, the industry has a 'caring, respectful, and professional approach'." "It maintained that, without public funding of funeral services, private funeral companies must fill the void. In so doing, these companies incur property, insurance, compliance, staffing, and other costs, which must be covered by the prices they charge." It suggested the government introduce a legislative mandate for funeral prices to be transparent - it required price transparency from its members and said it encouraged them to offer free consultations for those pre-planning and pre-paying for funerals. Comments from the Ministry of Health were also included in the report. It acknowledged the current burial and cremation processes were "outdated and disproportionate, and needed modernisation". It said previous work in this area had been delayed by Covid-19, but it was in discussions with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Department of Internal Affairs about modernising the regulation of the funeral sector. "The ministry told us it is committed to reviewing the cremation regulations in 2025," the report said. The Funeral Directors Association, the Ministry of Health and the select committee have been approached for further comment. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
