This is from the NZ Medical Journal, and is an example of a research article that is polemical. The question, again, is euthanasia, which now seems to have gained the name of assisted dying, because euthanasia is seen as not sufficiently euphemistic.

As shown in Figure 1, 37% of doctors and 67% of nurses responding “strongly” or “mostly” agreed—on a 5-point scale from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘not sure’ that AD should be legalised in New Zealand, assuming provision of appropriate guidelines and protocols. In contrast, 58% of doctors and 29% of nurses “strongly” or “mostly” disagreed with legalising AD.

Well, since most Doctors in NZ still remember their oath and are reluctant. So the authors suggest there can be a protocol and nurses can do it.

This finding supports nurses’ willingness internationally to be involved, and to have been involved, in providing AD services. A number of jurisdictions with legal AD have considered extending AD functions to nurse practitioners, nurses in fact commonly administer AD in some of those jurisdictions, and nurses’ participation is considered normal and essential in The Netherlands. Nurse participation in several AD tasks is authorised under the new Canadian federal legislation in acknowledgement of the gaps in medical services in many geographic locations.
…
Many respondents also commented on the need for mandatory referral of requests by a conscientiously objecting professional, to ensure seekers had fair access to the legislation.

All health professionals should be legally obliged to refer a patient who requests assistance in dying to a suitable health
professional, regardless of whether they professionally or personally object to assisted dying. [Nurse]
If this becomes legal then roadblocks need to be removed for the patient by professionals who will object due to their own beliefs. It needs to be mandatory that onward referrals are made and that the patient can Self Refer.[Doctor]

Conversely, some respondents voiced a concern that there would be pressure
on health practitioners from colleagues, employers and the public to not participate.

That the uninformed, uneducated masses will rise to their soap boxes, on the internet,the press and various other media and spread misinformation and fear throughout the general public. Otherwise, I feel we are capable of legislating and implementing a secure, safe, ethical, auditable system to provide legal assisted death. [Doctor]
Targeting of practitioners who offer this service by religious zealots / idiots. [Doctor]

However, the most important information in this long paper is at the end. After arguing that this is feasible, and that any religious, moral and ethical issue (particularly those of us who are of the faith, who are quite happy being called zealots) the disclosures at the end of the paper give the game away.

Pam Oliver joined the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of New Zealand in 2014 for the purposes of obtaining information on that group’s activities for doctoral and other research purposes. Phillipa Malpas is a member of the ‘End of Life Choice’ Voluntary Euthanasia Society of New Zealand.

May the private member’s bill before Parliament be rejected. I for one, will not refer. I’d rather lose the profession I have dedicated my working life to, and keep my soul.