Euthanasia bill given legal stamp

"Opponents will now need to explain why they would not allow dying people, in extreme suffering, to have a choice about how and when they die." ACT leader David Seymour

A bill that would legalise euthanasia under strict controls has been given a legal stamp of approval that, if passed, it would not infringe on basic human rights to life.

It’s been welcomed by the bill’s holder, ACT leader David Seymour, who said it debunked the ‘‘myths’’ put forward by critics that the bill was poorly drafted.

The report is a standard assessment by Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, which tests all proposed legislation against the Bill of Rights Act.

Finlayson did find the bill was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights section pertaining to age – in a purely legal sense, the age restriction of 18 on Seymour’s bill was discriminatory under the act.

But, it was fully consistent with the rights not to be deprived of life, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.

Seymour said he expected that the report would provide assurance to MPs on the fence about supporting his bill when it’s likely to come before the House for its first reading during the next parliamentary term.

‘‘Opponents will now need to explain why they would not allow dying people, in extreme suffering, to have a choice about how and when they die – rather than hiding behind those straw men,’’ he said.

‘‘I am particularly pleased that the report finds my bill consistent with the right not to be deprived of life.

‘‘The report says that the eligibility criteria are narrow enough, and the safeguards strict enough, that the bill will not cause wrongful deaths, and that assisted dying will be available only to the group the bill intends – incurably or terminally ill, and in unbearable suffering.’’

Finlayson’s report only related to legal questions on Seymour’s bill. It did not assess it against any moral, ethical, religious or clinical views.

Seymour said that on the question of the right not to be deprived of life, his bill was consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.

‘‘This differs from the previous bill on assisted dying, in 2003. That bill was found to be inconsistent with the right not to be deprived of life. It didn’t have all of the same safeguards that my bill contains.’’

Recently, a separate parliamentary investigation into euthanasia detailed an overwhelmingly negative response by New Zealanders who took the time to make submissions to Parliament’s health select committee.

But in a report to Parliament, generated from that investigation, the health committee also acknowledged a number of scientific polls that showed up to 75 per cent of New Zealanders were in favour of euthanasia.