The basics of End of Life Choice

New Zealand is facing a question of life and death. After taking in the nation’s views on legalised euthanasia, the largestever parliamentary tour ended in November. Now Stuff is laying out the arguments surrounding the End of Life Choice bill.

Few of us want to die a painful death. Whether it is final years spent in a mire of discomfort, the crisis of a creeping medical condition, or an abrupt terminal diagnosis – avoiding a painful death is at the heart of the proposed End of Life Choice bill.

And it has captivated the country, with a record-setting 35,000 writing to a parliamentary select committee considering the prospective law, and more than 2000 being heard during a 14-city tour by MPs which ended in November. The bill is the latest attempt to answer a question about death that has long lingered in New Zealand.

END OF LIFE CHOICE

The End of Life Choice bill, which would legalise assisted euthanasia in a medical setting, was pulled from Parliament’s ballot in June 2017.

Put forward by ACT leader David Seymour, it sets out a pathway for people with terminal illness or grievous and irremediable medical conditions to choose an assisted death.

This is not the first time euthanasia has come before Parliament; previous bills were considered in 1995 and 2003.

A PATHWAY TO DEATH

New Zealand citizens, 18 and above, who have a terminal illness likely to kill them within six months, or a ‘‘grievous and irremediable medical condition’’, could seek assisted death if the bill becomes law.

To request death, a person would have to be in an advanced state of irreversible decline – unable to move, speak, eat or drink – and be experiencing unbearable pain.

A fully consented request would then be evaluated by two medical practitioners, and the opinion of a third specialist in the field could be sought if deemed necessary.

The person would be provided a lethal dose of medication, either ingested or injected by themselves or by a practitioner within 48 hours of a chosen time.

A NARROW ESCAPE OR SANCTIONED KILLING

Most arguments surrounding the bill sit alongside two opposing views: it is a narrow escape from a painful death, or it is the welcoming of sanctioned killing. Some fear it is a ‘‘slippery slope’’, where the bill will irrevocably change the country’s view of death and will be further liberalised to loosen safeguards in the future.

Among the alarmed are those concerned about elder abuse, and the disabled community wary of being captured by the law’s definitions.

Supporters, including advocacy groups and those with grievous illnesses, argue the settings of the law will tightly contain euthanasia – though they have suggested tweaks.

Both sides offer evidence from overseas jurisdictions – such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Oregon in the United States, and Canada – to bolster claims such laws are safe, or lead to people being killed without consent.

WHERE TO NOW

Parliament’s justice select committee is hearing international submitters, before staffers complete the immense task of compiling everything into a report early in 2019.

Individual MPs will then take a conscience vote on whether it goes to a public referendum.