TABLE TOP EXERCISES THAT INFLUENCE INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKING ‘EVENT 201’ WEF & GATES FOUNDATION

TABLE TOP EXERCISES ARE DESCRIBED AS A NORMAL TOOL OF PANDEMIC PREPAREDNESS TRAINING TO IMPROVE INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION & RESPONSE.. Several have already been acted out for International purposes at the  John Hopkins Centre For Health Bloomberg Public Health Center. Partners of the Center include :- Independent research & analysists. Supported by governments worldwide, foundations- funders and partners  etc., To name a few:- Open Society Foundations (George Soros) * World Health Org., (UN) WHO *Bell & Melinda Gates Foundation *Rockefeller Foundation* CEC * FDA and many more. The John Hopkins Centre was founded in 1998 by D A Henderson as a first Global-Govt Organization

JOHN HOPKINS – BLOOMBERG SCHOOLS OF PUBLIC HEALTH- CENTER FOR HEALTH SECURITY FUNDERS AND PARTNERS INCLUDE.. The Center conducts independent research and analysis, and our work is supported by government, foundations, and gifts. We are grateful for the generous support from our funders and partners. To study the vulnerability of US Civilian population to Biological Weapons. 25 plus years on the John Hopkins Health Security Bloomberg School’ s focus in ‘Severe Pandemics that threaten Our World

George Soros- Open Society Foundations *WHO *John Hopkins  * Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation *Rockefeller Foundation *Robert Wood Johnson Foundation U ASPR (Assistat Secretary for Prepared and Response *CDC *Homeland Security *FDA *DTRA *Alfred Sloan Foundation * de Beaument Foundation * Smith Richardson The Center was founded in 1998 by D.A. Henderson as the first nongovernment organization to study the vulnerability of the US civilian population to biological weapons and how to prevent, prepare, and respond to their consequences.

Between 1992- 2002 Published papers in Jama Medical Management of Biological Agents  *1999- 2000 Organized 2 National Symposia on Medical Health Response & Bio-terrorism *2001 was highly influential in government decisions to purchase a UN national Smallpox stockpile *2002 Became involved in the Guidance for Hospital and Communities in the US on Pandemic Preparedness Hospital Programmes *2003 Led & shaped US National efforts to engage the public in epidemic & disaster response policies & programs. Launched their 1st Peer Reviewed Journal in this field. Consequently Bioterrorism & Biosecurity was later renamed Health Security. In 2004 John Hopkins Health Security Centre’s research provoked US Policy of ‘Dual Use Research’. Startups publishing annual Health Security  federal funded articles. Which were used by the Media *Government to understand Bio-defense & Health Security

2006 John Hopkins Centre’s analysis * advocacy helped to form the ‘Pandemic & All-Hazards Preparedness Act and the Bio-medical Advanced Research & Development Authority (BARDA) *2011 John Hopkins Centre published its first ‘Nuclear Preparedness Guidance’ aimed at Public Health, medical and Civic Leader in the Rad Resilient City Initiative

2006 The John Hopkins Center analysis and advocacy helped to inform the framework for the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, as well as the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA).

2011 Published first nuclear preparedness guidance aimed at public health, medical, and civic leaders in the Rad Resilient City initiative. The initiative providing cities & their neighbors with a checklist of ‘preparedness actions’ following a nuclear detonation. Also provided leaders a Checklist of Preparedness’ as to the risk of terrorism

2012 John Hopkins created their first International Fellowship Program focused on building Bio-security leadership.. And a first effort report on how to allocate resources during a Pandemic. * In 2013 they helped lead-develop the US National Health Security Preparedness Index. (The first State to State Index on Health Preparedness)

2013-2014: John Hopkins Centre participated in debate referring to ‘Gain Of Function’-Potential Pathogen Research. This resulted in US Govt funding and a new US Policy *2014-2016 Established Track 2 – S E Asian-US & India -US Biosecurity dialogues * 2017 Published their first working paper in the field of ‘defining global catastrophic biological risks- catalyzing a new focus on these issues *John Hopkins Health Centre- Bloomberg School of Health Security are also well known worldwide for their famous ‘Table Top- Simulation Exercises. (1) 2001 ‘Dark Winter Exercise- Depicting a smallpox attack on the US- which led the US Govt to stockpile Smallpox Vaccines

The 2005 ‘Atlantic Storm’ Table-top simulation Exercise focusing on the Inter-dependence that is demonstrated among International Communities in the face of Epidemics & Biological Weapons. * Another John Hopkins Centre Exercise namely ‘CLADEX’ in 2018. Was a major table-top exercise on major political and policy decision making that would emerge if a global catastrophic biological event was to occur.

The one I find most interesting is John Hopkins Bloomberg Centre For Health Security – namely EVENT 201’ which took place on October 18th 2019. Only e months before the emergence of the COVID19 Pandemic. Of course Fact Checkers- and the usual participants- NGO’s- Govts etc., have said “Nothing to See Here- Its nothing to do with the emergence of the COVID 19 Pandemic”

The 18th October 2019 ‘201’ Global Pandemic Table-top Exercise was held at the Pierre Hotel in New York. The audience was by invite only (A livestream audience) Which has Video coverage on You Tube which can be viewed. The Tabletop exercise for the Global Pandemic was organized by the John Hopkins Center For Health Security, the World Economic Forum and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Funded by the ‘Open Philanthropy Project’

The Players (Actors) that participated in the Event 201 Table Top Exercise were individuals from Global Businesses, Govt & Public Health and involved Sofia Borges UN Foundation Senior Director at the New York Head Office of the UN * Dr Chris Elias -President of the Global Development Programme of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Dr Chris Elias serves as the President and CEO of PATH, an International non-profit organization and various other Advisory Boards including the Advisory Committee to the Director of the CDC & the Washington Global Health External Advisory Board. Also a Chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Other participating actors of the ‘Global Pandemic Table-Top Exercise Event’ include Timothy Evans (McGill University. Associate Dean of the School Of Population and Global Health in the Faculty of Medicine & Associate Vice Principle of the Global Policy and Innovation. Has a important role at the World Bank Group (The Nutrition, Health Population Global Practice)

Timothy Evans joined McGill University in September 2019 as the Inaugural Director and Associate Dean of the School of Population and Global Health (SPGH) in the Faculty of Medicine and Associate Vice-Principal (Global Policy and Innovation). He joined McGill after a 6-year tenure as the Senior Director of the Health, Nutrition and Population Global Practice at the World Bank Group.

A Representative of WHO (World Health Org, UN). Dr Evans who was Assistant Director General of WHO from 2003-2010. He is at the forefront for the last 20 years advancing Global Health Equity & Global Health Systems. Leading the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Also over-seeing the production of the annual World Health Report (UN) A Co-Founder of many partnerships, including the Global Alliance on Vaccines & Immunization (GAVI). He led the China CDC Team from September to November 2013 in the fights against Ebola

Participants of the Global Pandemic Exercise Event 201 included Representatives of the UN in various Global Initiatives* Representative from Vodafone Foundation *ANZ Bank *Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Representative  *WEF Representation *Global Business Advisory Leader * Lufthansa Group Airlines * UPS Foundation *A major Media Company* A member of the Monetary Authority of Singapore *Global Health Johnson & Johnson

The Global Pandemic Exercise concluded with Recommendation including a Call of Action for Public-Private Partnerships for a Global Pandemic Preparedness Response. The John Hopkins Global Pandemic Table-top Exercise was played out like it was in reality the pending Global Pandemic with all the mandatory Restrictions. Involved Radio and TV Broadcasting. Mis-Disinformation Campaigns.

Economic and societal impacts- social consequences- suffering. Unpresented levels of collaboration between govts, international organizations and the Private Sector. Lockdowns, social distancing. The challenges posed by the populations. A new robust form of public-private cooperation to address the pandemic. Proposals were made by WEF * Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation * John Hopkins Centre for Health Security

This included Govts international organizations, business, have essential corporate capabilities to be utilized on a very large scale during the Pandemic. Stating public sectors will be over-whelmed. Economic losses. Social Media, communications systems, global news media needed to enable govts emergency response. Operational partnerships between govt responses

WHO currently had a influenza vaccine stockpile with contracts to pharmaceutical companies that they agreed to supply during a global Pandemic. WHOs ability to distribute vaccines and therapeutics to countries in the greatest need. WHO R& D Blueprint Pathogens to be deployed in clinical trials during outbreaks in collaborations with CEPT, GAVI and WHO with Bi- or multinational agreements

* Cancelling of travel by Air & by Sea. International Aviation and Shipping *Border measures. Leading to unjustified border measures. Fear & uncertainty. Severely affecting Employment, businesses.. global supplies of products etc., Vaccine deaths are absent.

November 19th 2019 WEF article on managing Risk & Impact of Guture Pandemics. Also a Private Sector Roundtable- A Global Agenda 19th November 2011. 12th May 2019 WEF Peter Sands. Outbreak – Readiness and Business Impact. Protecting Lives and Livelihoods across the Global economy.( WEF)

Also includes references to – The Center’s scholars researched these topics to inform the scenario.CAPS: The Pathogen and Clinical Syndrome (PDF) *Communication in a pandemic (PDF) *Event 201 Model (PDF) *Finance in a pandemic (PDF) *Medical countermeasures (PDF)

All reported as a fictional unplanned Global COVID 19 Pandemic outbreak but it was played out as if in reality 18th October 2019 prior to COVID19 global emergence. Also recommended was the SPARS Pandemic 2015-2028 Table-top exercise at the John Hopkins Centre For Health and Security (October 2017) A Futuristic Scenario for Public Health Risk Communicators

Recommended Citation Schoch-Spana M, Brunson EK, Shearer MP, Ravi S, Sell TK, Chandler H, Gronvall GK. The SPARS Pandemic, 2025-2028: A Futuristic Scenario for Public Health Risk Communicators. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security; October 2017.

This is a hypothetical scenario designed to illustrate the public health risk communication challenges that could potentially emerge during a naturally occurring infectious disease outbreak requiring development and distribution of novel and/or investigational drugs, vaccines, therapeutics, or other medical countermeasures. The infectious pathogen, medical countermeasures, characters, news media excerpts, social media posts, and government agency responses described herein are entirely fictional

LINK TO THE ‘ECHO CHAMBER’ SPARS PANDEMIC 2025- 2028 (https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/spars-pandemic-scenario.pdf)

https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/tabletop-exercises/event-201-pandemic-tabletop-exercise

OTHER LINKS OF INTEREST: 1 Global Health Security: Epidemics Readiness Accelerator. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/projects/managing-the-risk-and-impact-of-future-epidemics. Accessed 11/19/19

2 Private Sector Roundtable. Global health Security Agenda. https://ghsagenda.org/home/joining-the-ghsa/psrt/. Accessed 11/19/19

3 Peter Sands. Outbreak readiness and business impact: protecting lives and livelihoods across the global economy. World Economic Forum 2019. https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/outbreak-readiness-and-business-impact-protecting-lives-and-livelihoods-across-the-global-economy. Accessed 12/5/19

https://www.weforum.org/press/2019/10/live-simulation-exercise-to-prepare-public-and-private-leaders-for-pandemic-response/

https://www.cni.org/topics/special-collections/event-201-why-werent-we-paying-attention

https://science.feedback.org/review/simulation-exercises-such-as-catastrophic-contagion-normal-part-pandemic-preparedness-dont-predict-future-pandemics/

WakeUpNZ

RESEARCHER Cassie

...

COVID 19 Blog Posts View all Categories

ONE STATE REPORTS 1,700% INCREASE IN VAERS REPORTS AFER ROLL OUT OF COVID JABS

Health Alert on mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Safety was reported 15th February 2023. Referencing the Communications Office of News Media# Florida Health Government. The State Surgeon General notified the Health Care Sector and the public of substantial increase of Vax Adverse Event reporting (VAERS) in Florida after the COVID-19 Vax rollout.

In Florida alone there was a 1,700% increase in VAERS reports after the rollout of COVID19 jabs, compared to an increase of 400% in overall vaccine administration for the same period. The reporting of life threatening conditions increased over 4,400%. This is a novel increase and was not seen during the 2009 H1N1 Vax campaign. The State Surgeon General states’ there is a need for additions unbiased research to better understand the COVID-19 vax short and long term effects.

The findings in Florida are reported to be consistent with various other studies that continue to uncover such risks. After evaluating this the State Surgeon General wrote a letter to FDA and CDC illustrating the risk factors associated with the mRNA COVID-10 vaccines, emphasizing the need for additional transparency.

The State Surgeon General referred to a number of studies associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events, including coagulation disorders, acute cardiac arrests, other cardias acute events, Bells Palsy and encephalitis In one of the studies the risk was 1 in 550 individuals, which is much higher than in other vaccines.

Another study found increased acute cardiac arrests and other acute cardiac events following the COVID jab. A third study related to COVID19 vax, found preliminary evidence of increased risk of both coronary disease and cardiovascular disease.

The CDC had already identified safety signal for stroke among individuals over 65 years of age and older following the bivalent booster administration, referring to a need for further assessments and research regarding safety of ALL mRNA COVID-19 Vax’s. The State Of Florida remined health care providers to accurately communicate the risks and benefits of all clinical interventions to their patients, including those associated with COVID-19 and other public health concerns. To promote importance of treatment and promoting prevention through healthy habits, encouraging health care providers to do the same.

To support transparency including those associated with COVID19 Vax as additional risks continue to be identified and disclosed to the public. To support transparency, the State of Florida reminds health care providers to accurately communicate the risks and benefits of all clinical interventions to their patients, including those associated with the COVID-19 vaccine as additional risks continue to be identified and disclosed to the public.

The State of Florida in the department that is nationally accredited by the Public Health Accreditation Board, works to protect, promote and improve health of all people in Florida through integrated state, county and community efforts

LINKS:

https://www.floridahealth.gov/newsroom/2023/02/20230215-updated-health-alert.pr.html#:~:text=2022%2C%20mRNA%20COVID%2D19%20vaccines,much%20higher%20than%20other%20vaccines.&text=Sun%20CLF%20et%20al%2C%20Sci%20Rep.

Reference  Communications Office  NewsMedia@flhealth.gov  (850) 245-4111

According to a study, Fraiman J et al, Vaccine. 2022,

A second study, Sun CLF et al, Sci Rep. 2022, found

Additionally, Dag Berild J et al, JAMA Netw Open. 2022, assessed the risk of thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic events

Public Health Accreditation Board, works to protect, promote and improve the health of all people in Florida

Florida Department of Health  www.FloridaHealth.gov.

https://wakeupnz.org

Researched by Carol Sakey

 

...

EUTHANASIA AND COVID-19 RELATIONSHIP IN GOVERNMENT’S PLAYBOOK

EXCLUSIVE: MOH says Kiwis with COVID-19 can now be eligible for euthanasia..NZ euthanasia expansion.. By The Defender.

OIA REQUEST: An Official Information Act reply to The Defender, from the Ministry of Health, which says that patients with COVID-19 could be eligible for euthanasia, has left National MP Simon O’Connor disappointed but not surprised.

HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS RAISE CONCERNS:  In November The Defender wrote to the New Zealand Ministry of Health (MOH) to ask some important questions about the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide in New Zealand. In light of the serious deficiencies in the End of Life Choice Act (EOLCA), and concerns that have been raised by healthcare professionals, we felt it was crucial to put some urgent questions to the MOH.

COVID-19 AND ASSISTED DYING: In our Official Information Act (OIA) request we asked the following question: “Could a patient who is severely hospitalized with Covid-19 potentially be eligible for assisted suicide or euthanasia under the Act if a health practitioner viewed their prognosis as less than 6 months?”

TOOLS  TO RESOLVE SERIOUS CRISIS: There were several reasons why The Defender wanted to seek clarity from the MOH about this issue.  Firstly, New Zealand is currently described as being in a precarious position when it comes to COVID-19 and hospital resources. In light of this, it would not be hard to envisage a situation in which a speedy and sizeable rise in COVID-19 hospitalisations could result in pressure to utilize euthanasia and assisted suicide as tools to resolve such a serious crisis.

WARNING OF CAUTION: Overseas commentators have raised the prospect of these kind of unethical motivations since early in this pandemic.  Last year’s tragic case of the elderly Canadian woman who had an assisted suicide to avoid another COVID-19 lockdown highlights exactly why caution is warranted in relation to COVID-19 and euthanasia.  “The lack of stringent safeguards in the EOLCA raised red flags with us. Could a patient with COVID-19 find their way into the eligibility criteria? And, if so, what serious risks would this pose to the already often-vulnerable elderly members of our communities?” says The Defender editor Henoch Kloosterboer.

CRITERIA FOR ASSISTED DYING: The MOH responded to our OIA request on Tuesday (7th of December, 2021). Their reply to The Defender started on a more promising note: “There are clear eligibility criteria for assisted dying. These include that a person must have a terminal illness that is likely to end their life within six months.” But then their response becomes more disturbing (emphasis added):

THE ATTENDING PRACTITIONER:   “A terminal illness is most often a prolonged disease where treatment is not effective. The EOLC Act states eligibility is determined by the attending medical practitioner (AMP), and the independent medical practitioner.”

SERIOUS CONCERNS: This raises serious concerns. Firstly, there is nothing concrete about the phrase “most often”, in fact, its inclusion in this specific context clearly seems to suggest that the MOH considers the definition of terminal illness to be subjective and open to interpretation.

DETERMINATION OF QUALIFIED TERMINAL ILLNESS: The very next sentence seems to back this up. It clarifies that the MOH considers the attending medical practitioner (AMP) and the independent medical practitioner to be empowered by the EOLCA to make the determination about what does and doesn’t qualify as a terminal illness.  “In light of this vague interpretation, it is reasonable to suggest that COVID-19 could be classified as a ‘terminal illness’ depending on the prognosis of the patient and the subjective judgments of the AMP and independent medical practitioner. This feels like we’ve been sold one thing, and been delivered another.” says Kloosterboer.

ELIGIBILITY:  the final paragraph the MOH put this issue beyond doubt when they state (emphasis added): “Eligibility is determined on a case-by-case basis; therefore, the Ministry cannot make definitive statements about who is eligible. In some circumstances a person with COVID-19 may be eligible for assisted dying.”

INFORMED DECISION: Detail from the Ministry of Health’s response to the OIA request, 7 December 2021. If you examine the eligibility criteria for assisted suicide and euthanasia, as stated on the MOH website, it becomes easier to see how, given the right circumstances, a COVID-19 diagnosis could qualify:  aged 18 years or over a citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand  suffering from a terminal illness that is likely to end their life within six months in an advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability experiencing unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying

PROLONGED ILLNESS: It seems to us that the only possible protective factor here, and it’s an extremely flimsy one, is that all of this hinges on the tenuous grounds of how the phrase ‘terminal illness’ is interpreted. In particular, whether or not the AMP and independent medical practitioner are willing to hold firm to the MOH’s suggestion to us that a terminal illness is a “prolonged disease”. Even then, the term ‘prolonged disease’ is still extremely fraught due to its highly subjective nature. Who is to say that a medical practitioner who considers an illness which lasts longer than a fortnight to be a ‘prolonged disease’ isn’t actually correct in making such a determination?

RAISING OF SERIOUS QUESTIONS: The End of Life Choice Act offers no clarity or robust safeguards that would put this matter beyond doubt, in fact it does just the opposite, leaves the door wide open for abuse. MP Simon O’Connor expressed s as to the expansion of the new law less than a month after it came into force.  “New Zealanders who voted in the referendum in 2020 did not anticipate this law could be used for COVID19 patients”.

THE WORDING OF THE LEGISLATION: The wording of the law The wording of the law was always deliberately broad and interpretable, placing far too much into the judgement of the doctor.” He also said that this development raises serious questions about the problems in the EOLCA.

VERY TIMELY: “The  timely demonstration of how badly drafted the law is. When you consider the lack of key safeguards, and the risky shroud of secrecy that the EOLCA has thrown over the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide, you can see that those of us warning about this Act shouldn’t have been dismissed so flippantly,” says Simon  O’Connor.  The implications of this are extremely serious. Not simply because of the potential threat COVID-19 poses to our ill-equipped NZ healthcare system, or the fact that vulnerable elderly people are the most affected by the ravages of this illness.

LACK OF TRANSPARENCY: There is also the fact that an unacceptable lack of transparency has been built into the EOLCA which will cloak all of this in a dangerous veil of secrecy that prevents robust public scrutiny. In a nutshell, the poorly considered structure of the EOLCA has now made the COVID-19 pandemic potentially even more dangerous for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand.

#DefendNZ,  were calling on the Ministry Of Health to take urgent action to  ensure that the End Of Life Choice Act cannot be used to provide assisted suicide or euthanasia to patients in New Zealand. Defend NZ had created a petition to send to Parliament calling for urgent amendments to the law including required detailed reporting and required independent witnesses, among other things, and were asking concerned citizens to sign and share it.

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

 

Researched by Carol Sakey

...

EUTHANASIA AND COVID-19 RELATIONSHIP IN GOVERNMENT’S PLAYBOOK

EXCLUSIVE: MOH says Kiwis with COVID-19 can now be eligible for euthanasia. New Zealand euthanasia expansion.. By The Defender.

OIA REQUEST: An Official Information Act reply to The Defender, from the Ministry of Health, which says that patients with COVID-19 could be eligible for euthanasia, has left National MP Simon O’Connor disappointed but not surprised.

HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS RAISE CONCERNS:  In November The Defender wrote to the New Zealand Ministry of Health (MOH) to ask some important questions about the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide in New Zealand. In light of the serious deficiencies in the End of Life Choice Act (EOLCA), and concerns that have been raised by healthcare professionals, we felt it was crucial to put some urgent questions to the MOH.

COVID-19 AND ASSISTED DYING: In our Official Information Act (OIA) request we asked the following question: “Could a patient who is severely hospitalised with Covid-19 potentially be eligible for assisted suicide or euthanasia under the Act if a health practitioner viewed their prognosis as less than 6 months?”

TOOLS  TO RESOLVE SERIOUS CRISIS: There were several reasons why The Defender wanted to seek clarity from the MOH about this issue.  Firstly, New Zealand is currently described as being in a precarious position when it comes to COVID-19 and hospital resources. In light of this, it would not be hard to envisage a situation in which a speedy and sizeable rise in COVID-19 hospitalizations could result in pressure to utilize euthanasia and assisted suicide as tools to resolve such a serious crisis.

WARNING OF CAUTION: Overseas commentators have raised the prospect of these kind of unethical motivations since early in this pandemic.  Last year’s tragic case of the elderly Canadian woman who had an assisted suicide to avoid another COVID-19 lockdown highlights exactly why caution is warranted in relation to COVID-19 and euthanasia.  “The lack of stringent safeguards in the EOLCA raised red flags with us. Could a patient with COVID-19 find their way into the eligibility criteria? And, if so, what serious risks would this pose to the already often-vulnerable elderly members of our communities?” says The Defender editor Henoch Kloosterboer.

CRITERIA FOR ASSISTED DYING: The MOH responded to our OIA request on Tuesday (7th of December, 2021). Their reply to The Defender started on a more promising note: “There are clear eligibility criteria for assisted dying. These include that a person must have a terminal illness that is likely to end their life within six months.” But then their response becomes more disturbing (emphasis added):

THE ATTENDING PRACTITIONER:   “A terminal illness is most often a prolonged disease where treatment is not effective. The EOLC Act states eligibility is determined by the attending medical practitioner (AMP), and the independent medical practitioner.”

SERIOUS CONCERNS: This raises serious concerns. Firstly, there is nothing concrete about the phrase “most often”, in fact, its inclusion in this specific context clearly seems to suggest that the MOH considers the definition of terminal illness to be subjective and open to interpretation.

DETERMINATION OF QUALIFIED TERMINAL ILLNESS: The very next sentence seems to back this up. It clarifies that the MOH considers the attending medical practitioner (AMP) and the independent medical practitioner to be empowered by the EOLCA to make the determination about what does and doesn’t qualify as a terminal illness.  “In light of this vague interpretation, it is reasonable to suggest that COVID-19 could be classified as a ‘terminal illness’ depending on the prognosis of the patient and the subjective judgments of the AMP and independent medical practitioner. This feels like we’ve been sold one thing, and been delivered another.” says Kloosterboer.

ELIGIBILITY:  the final paragraph the MOH put this issue beyond doubt when they state (emphasis added): “Eligibility is determined on a case-by-case basis; therefore, the Ministry cannot make definitive statements about who is eligible. In some circumstances a person with COVID-19 may be eligible for assisted dying.”

INFORMED DECISION: Detail from the Ministry of Health’s response to the OIA request, 7 December 2021. If you examine the eligibility criteria for assisted suicide and euthanasia, as stated on the MOH website, it becomes easier to see how, given the right circumstances, a COVID-19 diagnosis could qualify:  aged 18 years or over a citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand  suffering from a terminal illness that is likely to end their life within six months in an advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability experiencing unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying

PROLONGED ILLNESS: It seems to us that the only possible protective factor here, and it’s an extremely flimsy one, is that all of this hinges on the tenuous grounds of how the phrase ‘terminal illness’ is interpreted. In particular, whether or not the AMP and independent medical practitioner are willing to hold firm to the MOH’s suggestion to us that a terminal illness is a “prolonged disease”. Even then, the term ‘prolonged disease’ is still extremely fraught due to its highly subjective nature. Who is to say that a medical practitioner who considers an illness which lasts longer than a fortnight to be a ‘prolonged disease’ isn’t actually correct in making such a determination?

RAISING OF SERIOUS QUESTIONS: The End of Life Choice Act offers no clarity or robust safeguards that would put this matter beyond doubt, in fact it does just the opposite, leaves the door wide open for abuse. MP Simon O’Connor expressed s as to the expansion of the new law less than a month after it came into force.  “New Zealanders who voted in the referendum in 2020 did not anticipate this law could be used for COVID19 patients”.

THE WORDING OF THE LEGISLATION: The wording of the law The wording of the law was always deliberately broad and interpretable, placing far too much into the judgement of the doctor.” He also said that this development raises serious questions about the problems in the EOLCA.

VERY TIMELY: “The  timely demonstration of how badly drafted the law is. When you consider the lack of key safeguards, and the risky shroud of secrecy that the EOLCA has thrown over the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide, you can see that those of us warning about this Act shouldn’t have been dismissed so flippantly,” says Simon  O’Connor.  The implications of this are extremely serious. Not simply because of the potential threat COVID-19 poses to our ill-equipped NZ healthcare system, or the fact that vulnerable elderly people are the most affected by the ravages of this illness.

LACK OF TRANSPARENCY: There is also the fact that an unacceptable lack of transparency has been built into the EOLCA which will cloak all of this in a dangerous veil of secrecy that prevents robust public scrutiny. In a nutshell, the poorly considered structure of the EOLCA has now made the COVID-19 pandemic potentially even more dangerous for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand.

#DefendNZ,  were calling on the Ministry Of Health to take urgent action to  ensure that the End Of Life Choice Act cannot be used to provide assisted suicide or euthanasia to patients in New Zealand. Defend NZ had created a petition to send to Parliament calling for urgent amendments to the law including required detailed reporting and required independent witnesses, among other things, and were asking concerned citizens to sign and share it.

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

 

Researched by Carol Sakey

 

...