After that shaky start, Alastair's worried that people "in a depressed or affected state" might be duped into an assisted death. But the bill has clear safeguards against this.
It requires that two doctors (and, if either doctor has any doubt, a psychiatrist), must sign off that the person "has the ability to understand the nature of assisted dying; and the consequences for him or her of assisted dying".
They must also seek out relatives and look for signs of coercion. I can guarantee that those professionals will err on the side of caution, because the maximum penalty for getting it wrong is 14 years in prison.
Alastair is concerned people might seek an assisted death, only for it to be revealed that an unexpected recovery or a major advance in medical science was about to save them. He's right that some people make miraculous recoveries, and medical science is constantly advancing.
The trouble is, people's conditions are all so different. It should be up to the person concerned to judge their unique circumstances, but Alastair wants people who find themselves hopelessly ill and suffering to hope for a miracle just in case. There's nothing wrong with a bit of optimism, but the way Alastair insists on it for everyone is cruel.
Finally, Alastair is worried about the doctor-patient relationship. Again, it's something important we should all bear in mind. The thing is, overseas research shows that people trust their doctor more when these things are out in the open.
It makes sense really. In New Zealand it is estimated 4.5 per cent of deaths are caused by a doctor deliberately shortening life with drugs. Yes, you read that right, it is according to research by the University of Auckland School of Medicine.
Ultimately there are two questions on this debate. Is the current way acceptable? And can a better alternative be designed? Let me finish with the answers that much smarter people than I have given.
According to our own High Court, after considering 36 expert witnesses from around the world, people currently commit violent amateur suicide, refuse treatment food and water, sign "do not resuscitate" orders, have their lives ended by being given a little bit too much morphine, and suffer to the bitter end, all without any safeguards whatsoever. That is the current world. It can't possibly be ideal, but can we really design a law that makes it better?
The Supreme Court of Canada asked this question before it the country legalised it. It found "that a permissive regime with properly designed and administered safeguards was capable of protecting vulnerable people from abuse and error".
My bill is one of those bills, because our own Attorney General assessed it against the Bill of Rights Act and found the bill is consistent with our existing human rights laws.
Assisted dying is not the easiest topic, but nothing that really deeply affects people's lives ever is. Alastair is right to be cautious about my bill, but his misplaced compassion will actually hurt people if he votes against choice.
I really hope Alastair will reconsider his position before he votes on the second reading of the End of Life Choice Bill.
David Seymour is the MP for Epsom and ACT Party leader. Views expressed here are the writer's and not the newspaper's. Email: editor@hbtoday.co.nz
