Telemedicine / Telehealth has accelerated since the intro of COVID19 to New Zealand, this is happening worldwide. Telemedicine is a remote clinical service using telecommunications AI etc. and Telehealth refers to clinical and non clinical services with an opportunity for educating and training of medical personal. This is not new, back on 23rd May 2017 the Ministry of Health documented  ‘telehealth needs fast broadband service, this will make it a fairer system with more educational options for DHB staff. MOH promoting Telehealth into a provision for NZ Healthcare services.

A Telehealth Forum’ was established to advise on many matters including environmental ones which they said were of importance. Collaborations with international health organization took place. MOH referred to ‘Robotics’. The replacement of traditional medical practices of face to face meetings with medical professionals. This being namely the MOH. Uptake of the framework for ‘Sustainable Health NZ. IOT. (All a part of ‘The Internet of things’). Back in 2015 it was reported that NZ Police supported Telehealth for Mental Health in NZ.

Fast forward to 2022 ‘A Free Medical Abortion’ Order an abortion online. Abortion medication sent by post. Devaluing human life itself’. And telehealth is not without risks. It’s impossible to do a physical examination vis ‘telehealth’. And its questionable if a person is in the right frame of mind to describe what they are suffering, therefore risks the medical practitioner getting the diagnosis wrong.

Personal medical records risk being cyber attacked, used for third party purposes criminal or otherwise, if for political purpose. As government COVID restrictions continue telehealth becomes more familiar, normalised and then consequently accepted. (Common practice).  Some call Telehealth/Telemedicine the ‘Pandemic Technology’. Its been in the planning for many years.  In 1997 it was reported that  ‘Telehealth’ has an importance for patients seeking euthanasia, assisted suicide under the  Commonwealth Euthanasia Laws Act 1997.

The US and Canada have no prohibitions and have been using telehealth for euthanasia, assisted suicide. A US citizen Kristen Hanson wrote an article spelling out the dangers of ‘assisted suicide’ by telehealth. Her husband undergoing treatment for terminal cancer, he was tempted to seek assisted suicide but did not.

After his diagnosis and prognosis he lived a further 3 ½ years spent precious time with their children and formed special relationships with his sons. In fact during that time another son was born. In dying their was every reason to celebrate life even in dying. She said that “Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia Laws play on the most vulnerable, further endangers patients”.

She spoke of abusive caregivers, greedy family members wanting to be heirs to the patients fortunes. The removal of the need of patients to meet doctors face to face putting ill patients at further risk. She spoke about coercion, mental abuse leading patients wanting to find a quick way out of here. And the feeling of being a nuisance, under valued and not wanted.

David Seymour’s so called ‘End Of Life Choice Act’, cunningly the word ‘choice was added. When choice is limited by such an authoritarian govt then the word ‘choice ‘ has a greater significance. We all want choice, to choose what we want. But Seymour’s ‘euthanasia, assisted suicide Act’ has very dangerous concepts.  This was made law under the veil of COVID 19 November 2021.

Properly diagnosing a patient as terminal can be very difficult. Many patients have lived much longer even years longer after being told they are terminally ill. I believe that Telehealth has no place for assisted suicide or abortion, it desensitises and devalues human life.

It breaks down safeguards that protect patients overall health and wellbeing.  David Seymour’s law on euthanasia determines that ‘unbearable suffering ‘can be used as an eligibility to receive assisted suicide.  What if a patient seeking assisted suicide does not want to dob his family in, or feels ashamed he/she is being abused, coerced, is pressured.  Seymour’s Act  depicts that at the point of a medical practitioner actioning assisted suicide, no independent witness is present to confirm the patient is of sound mind. An eligible patient can die within 4 days after their diagnosis, prognosis without loved ones even being aware.

48 hrs time frame from writing the prescription for the lethal dose and administering it. It was proposed in Parliament the timeframe be 1 week, it was not even debated. Parliament voted down 2 amendments that required euthanasia to be a last resort for people  where they could not be helped by palliative care.  In Seymour’s Euthanasia Act 2 doctors need to  be involved with the patient seeking an end to their life.  They do not have to be doctors known to the patient or their family. Neither of the doctors need to have training in the area the patient is suffering in. This was not debated in Parliament.

An inexperienced doctor, straight out of medical school  can be involved in the process, therefore risks incorrect diagnosis, prognosis and may not even be aware of alternatives. Parliament voted down an independent witness being present at the time of death, did not debate this.

Only one doctor checks whether the person expresses their own free choice to euthanize without pressure, coercion. This doctor may be inexperienced, fresh out of medical school have provisional registration. Has no idea about the patient and what happens behind his/her closed doors at home. And does not even have to speak with the patient face to face. Neither does the doctor have experienced meeting the patient before. Parliament voted down the amendments to close this gap.

The  Assisted Suicide Act requires the person seeking euthanasia to have a NZ Passport or Permanent Residency Visa. But does not necessarily have to reside in NZ permanently. Parliament did not discuss this as being open to ‘Euthanasia Tourism’. Seymour’s Euthanasia Act became law in November 2021. Another one to add to Ardern’s Death Cult under the veil of COVID19.

With increased suicides in New Zealand what sort of message does this give. It’s legal. Assisted dying, the pitfalls of hastening death. Telehealth however risks missed psychological diagnosis, increases the risk of un necessary requests for euthanasia, assisted suicide.

The Defender’s editor sent an OIA Request for a Ministry Of Health response. “Could a patient who is severely hospitalised with COVID19 potentially be eligible for assisted suicide, if a health practitioner viewed this prognosis as less than 6 months”? MOH replied “ Kiwi’s with COVID19 can be eligible for ‘Euthanasia’ Assisted Suicide”?

The response from MOH was  “A terminal illness is most often a prolonged disease where treatment is not effective. The EOLC Act states ‘eligibility is determined by the attending practitioner (AMP) and the independent medical practitioner”. The Editor of The Defender reported the OIA response from the MOH raises some very serious concerns that (1) There is nothing concrete about the phrase that MOH used ‘most often’, that its inclusion in this specific context suggests that the 4.MOH considers the definition of ‘terminal illness’ to be subjective and open in interpretation

The MOH response also clarifies that the MOH considers the attending medical practitioner (AMP) and the independent practitioner to be empowered by the EOLCA to make the determination of what does, or does not qualify as a terminal illness. And also speaks of how vague the interpretation is. The editor of The Defender said it “feels like New Zealanders are being sold one thing and delivered another”. The Editor also referred to a lady in the States whose husband was diagnosed as terminal, but lived a a further 3 ½ yrs after diagnosis.

How that precious time was spent with their sons. That her husband had seriously thought about seeking assisted suicide, because he did not this meant that they could celebrate life even in dying. Especially with another son being born within those 3 ½ years.

The Editor also referenced a tragic case of an elderly Canadian lady who requested assisted suicide because she could not bear the very thought of going into another COVID19 lockdown.

New Zealanders are going through a massive deceit, a litany of lies, wool pulled over sheep’s eye. With language being purposely softened  for political self interest. Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide MOH calling this ‘Assisted Dying’ And David Seymour purposely adding the word ‘Choice’. Of course we all want choice, especially when freedom of choice is thin on the ground.

Christian morals are being swept away, there appears to be a diminishing line as to what is right and wrong. A destructive force that dehumanises humanity itself. In what is now called ‘Sustainable Healthcare’ which is Telehealth/ Telemedicine, furthering isolation of individuals.

It does not make anyone a good person because they are obedient to an immoral authoritative government. It does not make a person a good person if they are compliant to corruption and immorality, tyranny.

With Telehealth/ Telemedicine this raises huge concerns and risks to our privacy, who is even going to enforce regulation, can they even be enforced. I believe not. As for privacy this is codified in International human Rights, which is non-binding. The  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratifies the right to privacy, when whoever, where-ever justifies and finds reasons to either compliance or not.

Telehealth seriously risks cyber attacks where personal sensitive data can end up in criminal, political, commercial hands. A typical smart phone, a laptop is not equipped with the proper software to ensure your protected from cyber attacks. Even some software used by Telehealth practitioner for medical consultations including Zoom is at risk.

Zoom  is not end to end encrypted., it lacks essential security. It is open to malicious online crime, unauthorized third parties. Zoom meetings have been hijacked private data of people engaging in telehealth have had their private sensitive information, data stolen.

A landmark judgement as facets of fundamental rights to privacy. Stating that hospitals, doctors, institutions etc., collect vast amount of private personal sensitive information about individuals. Affirming the tremendous scope commercial exploitation  that takes places without a persons consent.

Referring to Telemedicine/ Telehealth opening up the same risks when people consent to give their healthcare provider permission to record sensitive private information during telehealth consultations. That these patients do not give consented to being exploited, have their private lives intruded upon.

‘Sustainable Healthcare- Beyond the Pandemic’ is just that ‘Telehealth/ Telemedicine continued as part of the Internet Of Things and no going back to the traditional way of life.

Telehealth is now  part of the protocol for medical abortion. Medication for abortion up to 12 weeks delivered by post. Family Planning is linked to International Planned Parenthood. Family planning is involved in the sexual education of our children.

International Planned Parenthood in the US are expanding their telehealth/ telemedicine services to 50 states in the US, however Ohio State lawmakers are pushing to ban Telehealth services for Abortion. This is supported by the over-ruling of Wade & Roe in the Supreme Court. 18 states in the US have already now banned telehealth/telemedicine service

Newshub reports that abortions have increased in NZ since Ardern’s decriminalizing the Abortions Act.  Surely with Telemedicine/ Telehealth this must also increase the number of abortions too.

RESEARCHED PRODUCED BY CAROL SAKEY   (WEBSITE –  https://wakeupnz.org  )

https://www.defendnz.co.nz/news-media/2021/12/19/exclusive-euthanasia-expansion-moh-says-kiwis-with-covid-19-can-now-be-eligible

https://www.noeuthanasia.org.au/deadly_mix_of_telehealth_and_euthanasia