KEY POINTS:
Here is an earlier selection of Your Views:
Farnz
If he is getting this treatment for this amount of money then why not give the victims family the same amount. This is not fair as far as I am concern he can go to hell. Let him rot in prison.
Darryn Appleton
While this man may have committed horrific crimes and caused immense grief to relatives of his victims, the issue of whether or not he should receive appropriate medical care is ethically quite clear from a medical practitioners perspective. He has been judged and found guilty by a jury of his peers and punished according to the laws of New Zealand. Does society really want their doctors to judge their patients and decide if their character and prior actions should determine whether or not they receive appropriate treatment? Anyone who says that doctors should refuse to treat criminals who have committed violent crimes is effectively suggesting that we should limit treatments that are the standard of care to those we find morally acceptable. Although crimes vary by degree, if we were to allow this kind of bias in our medical decision making, a line would have to be drawn somewhere between crimes that are unacceptably horrific and minor crimes. Who decides where that line is drawn? There can be no such line. Who would guarantee your freedom from persecution if physicians would do this?
Diana (London)
Correct Reihana's sentence did not include a slow and painful death. However, his victims had little choice in how their lives ended either. For someone like Reihana who has so indiscriminately and intently violated the basic moral and ethical codes on which society is founded, he should be treated with the same lack of consideration, compassion and humanity he showed his victims; zero. To treat this man would make a mockery of our justice system. Yes, he has received a sentence in a court of law, however I fail to see how full accommodation, three square meals a day and internet access could ever be sentence enough for the crimes he has committed. He is indebted to society, and until he has paid his debt he should receive no preferential treatment whatsoever. The money earmarked for this operation should go to honest, contributing members of society who have a greater need and entitlement to life.
Chieftain
Either hang him (good idea) or give him his operation. Society doesn't get to pick-and-choose. If Society wants him dead, then the death penalty should be available and he should hang. If, instead, we are repulsed by the death penalty and prefer to keep him incarcerated, then he is entitled to appropriate health care. Like his one million dollar lifesaving operation. What we cannot do his have it both ways: either he deserves to die, or he doesn't. Society has decided that he doesn't. Death by leukaemia is therefore not an acceptable punishment. Some fool has donated marrow, so he is entitled to receive it.
Waiheke Paul
It makes me very sad to read so many hateful comments. I am ashamed to be a kiwi. If we replace the name of Jason Reihana with that of David Bain we have a very different picture but under the law it is the same. However nobody seems to be thinking outside the square. A major portion of the cost is the guards that he would need. But why does Jason Reihana need to be guarded? He is getting hospital treatment to save his life. If he has some objection to this then he shouldn't be in the hospital. In this country you cannot force medical procedures on to someone who refuses to cooperate. If he can't be trusted to be treated safely without the need for guards then he shouldn't be treated. Let Jason Reihana decide.
Law Abider
It pays to be a criminal in this country.
ACC payments of millions for injuries sustained whilst committing a crime. The very best of health care, etc etc. What about the law abiding citizens who have to fight the various Government departments to get basic health care. Isn't it about time the balance went the other way? By all means let him have palliative care like most of us have to have as we cannot afford the bone marrow treatment. We would not like to be called murders if this was with-held, but don't forget it was his own actions that left his children without parents and caused suffering to the wider family too.
Concerned citizen
The death penalty is too good for this man. Operation? No, especially when so many deserving people wait & wait for operations.
Kelly
I think this is so wrong. I've got breast cancer. I'm fundraising $106k for my treatment (Herceptin). I've done no crime so why do I have to pay & he gets his for free. I'm still paying my taxes and still paying for him to stay in prison & now he gets this for free. This makes me sick.
Marion (Dunedin)
I think it is a disgrace that this medical treatment should be even considered for this low-life. When you think of the unfair medical decisions made in this country e.g. inadequate Herceptin treatment, no cervical cancer funding etc. I have friends and family members in constant pain and restricted life style whilst waiting for basic surgery, and to think this creep will go to the top of the waiting list and huge expense to the country.
D.L (Auckland)
Why don't we just withdraw any kind of medical care from all prisoners? No matter what crimes they have committed, let's treat them worse than animals. That should make everyone feel better.
Sugu
Something has gone amiss with this government. A killer who has taken lives and has violated the very fabric of our society is to cost tax payer a cool million dollars! This animal should be just given the minimum treatment and left to die. It's sad the government cannot afford to fund women's breat cancer drug but willingly would splash a million dollars for the scum of society. Did anyone consider the victim's family and the daily torture they go through? What is wrong with our prison system? Maybe its time we put the right people in government so that idiotic decisions like this will be avoided next time.
HM (Eden Terrace)
We don't have the death penalty in this country. The prisoner has been sentenced to 21 years, not the term of his natural life. So morally and legally, there's no choice and he has to have the procedure. All those people out there who want this guy dead should think about what they are asking of the doctors who are treating him. You want them to be his killers for you? You want people who are pledged to save life to be executioners? To me, that's just plain gutless. If the guy needed a $10 operation to keep him alive, it would not even make the papers. How hypothetically expensive does the operation have to be before it suddenly becomes a public issue?
Cambridge
This is a disgusting consideration for a double murderer to be given any privileges when we have decent NZers waiting also for life threatening operations and who die because they are unable to afford to pay. Forgive me for sounding cynical, crime pays in this country. Whilst in jail you can be well fed educated all with no cost to the criminal good ol' tax payer. Maybe even apply for home detention, what does that really mean. Loss of what privileges? Come on all you liberal minded politicians, see it as it is start protecting all the decent victims have the law breakers make restitution and not waste taxpayers money on people like this double murderer, make him pay towards his health care like the rest of us and like us if he is unable to afford it 'tough'.
Kiwi Mum
While studying at University of Auckland, our class was informed that the cost of keeping one criminal behind bars for a year would put one student through med school. (I was in a class with prospective doctors, nurses, optometrists, pharmacists etc). How on earth can the government justify prolonging the life of a man who not only cut two lives short, not to mention the lives of family and friends that have been affected, but who would otherwise never have been able to afford this life saving operation unless he committed the murders? Use the money to put towards 21 people that are prepared to save lives, rather than take them, and put them through med school. (21, based on 21 years life imprisonment).
Rick Glen
That is the draw back of state welfare. There will always be situations where money is taken from the deserving and the needy to be given to the unworthy. So cheer up taxes payers, it will only get worse. Most criminals re-offend so no doubt we are all spending this million to allow this man to kill again in the future.
Rambo
It should be easy. Say No to the operation. Or if the answer is going to be yes, then attend to all of the people on waiting lists all over the country first.
Eric (West)
Given a choice in the matter, we could all do without Mr Reihana. Given an even better choice, we would prefer that he had not committed his crimes. But for these he has been tried convicted and sentenced. That sentence did not include a slow and painful death, we can all have opinions on that, but it won't change anything. If we deliberately fail to treat him, knowing he will die if we don't, we are no better than he is. And if we lower ourselves to that level, Mr Reihana and his like, win. Ultimately we get the society we deserve and what we deserve is governed by our actions. We should not be taking actions which may lead to the kind of world that Reihana's mind seems to inhabit.
Bri (Auckland)
Save me the bleeding hearts. His crime does not warrant him being put on the same level as another human being. Give him a lethal injection, that will cure his pain and end the family's long term suffering or bring in euthanasia and let him be his own destiny.
Concerned Kiwi
After what this animal did and the apparent lack of remorse shown for his actions (as per comments made by the sentencing judge that I read), also from his apparent plan to kill himself after killing his ex and her new partner, then couldn't bring himself to do it it's simple let him die. He is wasted space so should be removed from this life. He doesn't deserve to live and we tax payers certainly shouldn't be footing the bill. His existence should be terminated immediately.
Brendon (Wellington)
Perhaps criminals of this kind should be denied full societal privileges? After all, how anti-social does one have to be before society becomes anti-them? However, this is a fundamental change to the penal system rather than something to be trialled on this particular loser.
JK
To tell the truth, our government's going to the dogs, all they do is waste time on passing bills for anti-smacking, and other useless bills, when they could be dealing with environmental issues, youth violence and etc. If they deal with family and marital violence early, they won't have a problem in the future, such as this incident. As for the $1 million surgery, he has already had a chance at life in society and he's wasted it. Why not give younger children a chance as well? I mean, half of his life is gone, when he gets out of prison, he'll probably get chucked in again anyway and it'll be hard for him to get a job because of his prison time. He should suffer the consequences of his actions.
"Rehana"
There is a difference in being free to live and being free. He should be listed like anyone else and he can wait for his turn. However, can't understand why the Government spends money on these criminals instead of speeding up the most needy of surgeries. It's amazing that these criminals destroy lives, but the victims end up paying for his welfare!
Marcy Westie
No he should not get an operation. It is that simple, but he will cause that is the way we do things around here! My sympathies to the victims & family & friends. Why can't experiments be done on hard core prisoners like him, cold blooded killers, instead of the animals? Now there's a thought. Is that PC?
Mary
Given the nature of Reihana's illness and his present position in society, that being a convicted felon, he should be made comfortable and that's all. No special medical treatment paid for by public money, especially as there are people who have been waiting for years to receive surgical and other medical procedures. When this man decided to kill two innocent people and was found guilty of committing a double murder, he therefore forfeited his right to all of society's benefits.
Harriett
I had to wait 5 years to receive a cataract. Is there a waiting list for leukaemia patients? I can understand the victim's family's anger. They lost two loved ones and now hear through the media that over a million dollars is being spent on medical treatment for this prisoner. My question to myself is: how would I truly feel?
Mike D
Well, I always suspected that crime did in fact pay. Now we have proof. I visited a prison once. Gyms, TV, broadband access, current movies shown, basketball courts. I was told that the modern concept of penal incarceration had sound ideological basis. Well, 'scuse my French but your ideology sucks! People commit a crime, they pay. Simple equation. Its not right that they get stuck in surroundings that were probably better than the conditions they lived in on the "outside", and then gain access to public funded health care, the likes of which ordinary decent citizens would struggle to receive. And what does the victim or their survivors get? I'm sitting at my desk at work, working hard "for the man" to pay the taxes to give this scumbag a new lease on life. Why? The State needs a good smack upside the head on this one - if Sue Bradford doesn't object that is.
Elizabeth Motu
That truly sucks. So if I find I have bone marrow cancer tomorrow, I am a single mum, should I go and commit a crime to have the transplant to? There must surely be some guidelines in place to cover such an area when it comes to such matters.
Next