Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): We know that everyone who is born alive will die. We know that the more you love a person the harder it is to say goodbye to them when they do die. But we also know that for over 20 years the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders support a terminally or incurably ill person to be able to request the assistance of a doctor to end their life.The first time I supported this legislation was in 1995 supporting the Michael Laws bill; second in 2003 supporting the Peter Brown bill; and the third time today surprisingly supporting an initiative from David Seymour. Can I acknowledge David Seymour and say that he has given up a lot in politics and a lot of his time and energy to progress the bill. New Zealanders will appreciate it.It is an emotional subject because it's about death. But for me it's also about dignity and choice. It's about respect. It is not about disabled people. It is not about elderly people. It is about people who are terminally ill. The bill is limited to those people much to my frustration actually but I accept the reasoning for it.Two hundred million people live in a country or jurisdiction with assisted dying laws: Belgium the Netherlands Luxembourg Switzerland Canada many states of the USA Victoria in Australia. Their laws work well; we've heard much about them during this debate.I want to focus on just two points in my contribution: suicide and palliative care. The idea that anybody in this House would want to increase suicide numbers is just vile in every sense of the word. The select committee considering the petition of the Hon Maryan Street and others chaired by Simon O'Connor MP sought advice during consideration of that petition about the link between euthanasia legislation and suicide rates. They were told very clearly that there was no connection. In fact the only connection there is which was not the consideration of the committee is that people at the moment end their lives often in lonely circumstances and in horrific ways because they don't want to continue living. They are terminally ill but don't have the option of a dignified death.The High Court judgment of Collins J in Seales v Attorney-General looked at the evidence provided by Dr Weaver and Dr Munro who did extensive research into suicides between 1900 and 2000. They said that between 3 percent and 8 percent of suicides were committed by people who were rational competent but had a terminal illness. They wanted to end their lives before they lost the ability to choose for themselves. Similar research has found the same in Western Australia. So opposing this bill would support people dying lonely unsupported and in horrific circumstances. That's not my view.I'm very familiar with palliative care and I just can't express my admiration for the amazing work that those people in palliative care do. But again based on evidence we know that palliative care on its own cannot provide relief from suffering in all cases. Palliative care funding in Belgium went up at the same time as their end of life choice legislation was passed. That's what we should be advocating for as well.If we look at Oregon a significant number of people who have the end of life drugs in their possession after their request has gone through the process end up not using it but it means—and this is the most important thing to me—that they live their remaining days or weeks or months actually living rather than living towards their death in fear of how they will die.Everyone in this House should ask themselves how do they want to die. Well in my view we should want everyone to die in dignity without pain and peacefully and they should then rest in peace. This bill will allow people who choose that option to do so.