Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I'd like to continue the theme of the difficulties of determining somebody who has less than six months to live but as this is the first time I have spoken at all on this bill I'd like to just commence with a few opening remarks. Colleagues and the public are aware of my own opposition to this bill and that's not going to change throughout the passage of this legislation. That said I am going to bring an amendment to Part 2 to expand on the member's sensible suggestion on conscientious objection. I'll discuss that at the appropriate time.Members on this side of the Chamber have heard of a couple of stories over the weekend very heartfelt stories of people I've come to know very well. One is Tracey Elliot who has advanced breast cancer and is terminal but was told in 2014 that she had just days to live. We all know about Blair Vining and the fact that he was told that without treatment he had less than eight weeks to live and even with treatment frankly I don't think the best prognosis would have been that eight months later struggling though he is with his health that he would still be here. So I support Dr Smith's concerns about the arbitrary nature of the determination of a terminal illness.Now as some members know I have run surgical and aged-care facilities. I look at this from a sort of bioethical lens. One of those specific bioethical principles is the principle of double effect. In plain English that means it's OK to administer a treatment that has the primary effect of alleviating pain even if the secondary effect is the unwanted life shortening. In fact sometimes some people would consider that that would actually terminate someone's life. I suggest—in fact I'd submit to the committee—that that's actually a bit of a myth. The best evidence is that palliative sedation and pain management does not hasten deaths and that's the outcome of many many studies. It's a bit of a myth that somehow if we were to inject a bolus of morphine into someone that's under pain relief needing of pain relief that that could kill them. In nearly no case does that occur. I'm very happy to cite the international research that underpins that.The problem is and it was brought up in a debate that I had with Mr Seymour in Timaru last year that actually not even doctors are that well versed in this issue. It underscores to me the real need the absolute need for better training of palliative care in this country and the dignified end of life care and support that is required for anyone that is going on that journey. What worries me about this is that while we have a bill that restricts through clause 4 the eligible people for whom this bill will apply there's no doubt that this won't be the end of the story. The select committee—and I only sat on a subcommittee in Dunedin—heard some fantastic submissions. Those submitters in favour of this bill suggested that there were many other factors that should be taken into account including a desire to save families from watching. This is in addition to the grievous and irremediable suffering that they are perceived to be going through. A desire to save families from watching a family member suffer a desire to avoid placing an undue burden on the health system wanting to avoid being a burden on families the right of those with chronic mental illnesses to choose end of life options and the fear of the effects of dementia on the patient and their families—those were just an example of the sorts of submissions that the committees heard were preferred as well as grievous and remedial suffering. I'm sorry to have to confirm in my view at least to the committee that this regardless of what happens if this bill passes into law will be by no means the end of the discussion. There will be further attempts I think to broaden out. It's that that worries me greatly because doctors did not come to their professions to do anything harmful. I did not come to this House to enable life to be ended.