Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I welcome this opportunity to engage on Part 1 and particularly the provisions that set down and define who it is that will be able to get the assisted suicide that's provided for in this bill.During my second reading speech I made the very strong point that a fundamental part of New Zealand's Kiwi values is a respect for life. What we see in clause 4 of this bill is a watering down of the protections that have long existed to ensure that our country treats human life with that respect. Now the member in the chair told us when this bill was introduced that he had this definition 100 percent right. He was absolutely confident that the definition that we debate this evening on clause 4 was right. Yet what we see as we see in other jurisdictions is that the moment we go down this road of saying that assisted suicide is OK in some cases we have an awful job in trying to define where in that grey space we should be. What we see already in the multiple Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) including my own on clause 4 is that there is huge variation and judgment about who and who should not be eligible for assisted suicide.Now my concerns are this: the basics of this bill depend on a level of certainty from medical practitioners that does not exist. That is at the select committee we heard from not hundreds but actually over a thousand different medical practitioners who said that when we put in a law and say that this law on this assisted suicide should only apply to people for instance that have six months or less to live. The mover and supporters of the bill say Well that's great. Nobody who's got more than six months to live is going to be covered by this bill." Well that's not true. The medical profession has made plain to the select committee and to the Parliament that these medical judgments are not 100 percent accurate whether it is the judgment about the length of life that person has to live whether it is the judgment whether that person is being coerced or is being inappropriately influenced or the judgment—and actually one of the most difficult judgments is that judgment—as to whether a person is of sound mind. I'll be upfront: if the doctors tomorrow gave me a terminal diagnosis I would be depressed. I really would be finding it really tough. I'm not sure that I would say that I was of good sound mind to make a judgment about a suicide in my life. I think that would be true for many people when these difficult life and death questions are there.So I say to this Parliament: if you really believe that we have a duty to protect life and that this law would fail if even a single person dies when they did not intend to or should not have then we need to be upfront that these provisions in Part 1 cannot give—impossible to be ever—100 percent surety that mistakes will not be made. I invite members to look at the very good evidence that was provided to the select committee in overseas jurisdictions about that very question. There is not 100 percent certainty. I just seek honesty from the proponents of this bill including the member in the chair to accept this fact. If this Part 1 is passed there will be people who do not meet this criteria whose lives are terminated prematurely—have that honesty. Just in the same way in other areas of law we need to be upfront that if we pass this law there will be people whose lives are lost who are dead from which there is no recourse and that is something that this Parliament is prepared to accept. If we do not accept that reality we are actually denying what this part says."