Euthanasia is the issue du jour, that's all. The recently publicised case of the man who helped his mother die, and admits it, has been extensively outlined and made him appear saintly, but however good his intentions, however decent the man, helping your mother to kill herself is never going to be an achievement to be wholly proud of.
A rubber-stamped form won't change that.
I'm not sure how much better off the man would have been if he'd had to submit to a set of newly drafted rules to make sure he stuck to clerical procedure and filled in the right forms.
That's the sort of extra stress a caring, thoughtful family doesn't need, still less a committee to submit their plan to, and their dying relative affirming in triplicate that they want to die and be quick about it.
There are times when discretion counts for something and a situation like that should be one of them.
That's where I disagree with Colin Gavaghan, an Otago University medical law and ethics expert who says he has heard (as we all have) of people being given high morphine doses at the end of their lives by doctors who would have known what they were doing.
"I'd be surprised if it didn't happen everywhere ... [but] none of us wants a nod and a wink culture where we know it goes on behind closed doors," is his view.
Actually, some of us do. We'd prefer the system that ticks along quietly as long as there are merciful doctors.
Doctors demonstrate thoughtfulness and concern all the time.
They don't need an overlay of busybodies interfering with the patient-doctor relationship, and they shouldn't be made to put up with it.
Should we be prosecuted for actively helping someone else die?
I don't see a way round it.
It's an important ethical issue, not a minor matter like dog licensing, and the sanctity of human life doesn't diminish just because someone is close to death.
Meanwhile, in another matter involving discretion, there's been a claim that the police are decriminalising dope by stealth.
A Massey University research centre report says that while the number of cannabis users has stayed constant, arrests for possession have fallen since the late 1990s.
Police say the figures quoted are misleading, and point out that officer discretion is a big part of policing.
In other words, an 18-year-old picked up with a small quantity of dope on him is hardly worth getting excited about and who would disagree?
We get along pretty well with the existing law, where the emphasis is placed more on dealers than users, and small-time users are left alone unless they absolutely demand attention - though even then they pretty much get a collective yawn.
We don't need a bureaucracy to rubber-stamp that, either.
We are a weird little country that rushes to make laws about any and everything, as fast as fashionable views and skirt lengths change.
Better, surely, to wait until there's real consensus on these issues than to crudely make change happen without carefully thinking through the consequences.
