Dying is inevitable, and a stringent process to bring forward a person’s death, pending all requirements are met, has been legal for more than three years.
Nelson anaesthetist and assisted dying service provider, Dr Katie Ben, will unpack facets of the End of Life Choice Act including the legal requirements for assisted death, its safeguards, and some of her submitted suggestions for improvements to the legislation.
Her talk on 2 March at the Suter Theatre is presented by the Nelson Institute, and Katie will also describe a typical journey for an end-of-life patient with reference to cases, and some details, which are altered to preserve confidentiality. The event will conclude with questions to dispel any myths associated with the Act.
Katie approved of the assisted dying concept but voted against it in the 2020 public referendum over concerns about the legislation’s ambiguity.
However, she became involved in the service to “make sure it was done properly”, and has assessed more than 100 patients, and assisted more than 20 to have a peaceful death at a time and place of their choosing.
She says a “substantial amount” had been from Nelson Tasman, and she often travels in her light aircraft to provide timely assessments for assisted dying patients on the West Coast.
The End of Life Choice Act, which enables New Zealand residents who meet the criteria to request assisted dying, underwent its first review by the Ministry of Health towards the end of 2024 and public feedback on the legislation was also open.
Katie says her submissions as part of the Act review included that it was currently strenuous for patients to pick a date and time for their lethal dose of medication.
Even though the date isn’t bound, it must be stated as part of their application to be assessed for legal compliance.
“Legally you’re supposed to be likely to die within the first six months and if you’re thinking you’re going to live longer than that, then you’re probably not legally eligible at that moment,” she says.
“We’ve had people that have been found not eligible because it’s been felt they would survive longer than six months, and they’ve died within the next four weeks.
“But if you get to six months and you haven’t had the medication administered, and you would like further time, you can push it out another six months.
“In practice, if you get to the end of your second set of six months and you still haven’t taken up the medication, then you were never really eligible to start with, because you’re still here, so the whole diagnosis is so inexact.”
Katie says there also needs to be a legal definition for ‘likely’ in the Act.
“I was at a conference where we were discussing the Act, and I heard four different presenters give four different interpretations of the word ‘likely’ during their talks,” she says.
“One person said likely meant almost probably, one person thought almost certainly, one person said more than 50-50, and one person said possible… so where is the balance of proof?
“When you’re talking about something that involves the end of someone’s life, which is possibly one of the biggest decisions you can make, that level of ambiguity in the legislation doesn’t sit comfortably with me.”
The talk starts at 2pm, $5 entry.
