Mr. David Seymour:

This is a major concern. As someone who starts from a libertarian outlook I certainly do not want to create a law that allows people to take advantage of each other, especially on such a critical condition. I was deeply concerned about this also. I will make a point before I get to the safeguards in our law. It is interesting that if we analyse who uses assisted dying laws throughout the world and who are the first people to use them, we see that it tends to be people who are highly educated and highly articulate with assertive personality traits. In other words, it is people who are able to navigate the considerable bureaucracy around assisted dying who have the willpower to make it work. If it were the opposite, whereby it tended to be people of lower education with fewer means and less assertive personalities, then we might conclude that the pattern showed people were being pushed into, and acceding to, assisted dying to the extent they were not able to resist. This is clearly not the case based on the data from around the world.

When it comes to our particular law there are a large number of safeguards. As I said in my introduction, we must remember the Crimes Act in New Zealand remains in place. Aiding and abetting suicide remains a crime. Any medical practitioner participating in assisted dying could be liable for a very serious crime unless they follow every aspect of the End of Life Choice Act to the letter, in order that they can access what is, effectively, an exemption from the Crimes Act provision. One of the provisions they must follow in the first instance is that once a person has approached a medical practitioner the medical practitioner must speak to them at regular intervals about their condition. They must ensure they are fully informed and that they have had the opportunity to speak to anyone who might be relevant to them in their life, or not talk to anyone. As we heard in Dr. Donnelly's submission, we do not want to force people to talk to people who might be unhelpful. We also do not want to prevent people from speaking to those who might be helpful. Nevertheless, families and relationships are complex and we should ensure that people have the full freedom to make the most of them.

The patient must then go through a formal assessment with this doctor, once these discussions have been had over a period of time. This involves examining the patient. If the doctor has any doubt that the person is mentally competent or capable of making the decision they can go to a psychiatrist, effectively a third medical practitioner after the attending and independent medical practitioner. Either the attending or independent medical practitioner can make a referral to a psychiatrist. Having made the first assessment, the Ministry of Health selects at random a second, independent, medical practitioner who repeats the entire process of verifying that the person is a person eligible for assisted dying. If they get through that, and remember either doctor can effectively veto it as can a psychiatrist, they return to their original doctor where they have further discussions as a person now deemed eligible for assisted dying, with regard to whether they should proceed and when. Many people do not. Either they die of something else, like my friend Bobbie Carroll a few weeks ago, or they believe that having the choice in itself gives them control and has a palliative effect, as has been found internationally. It is pretty extensive.