Dr Jonquiere spoke in Dunedin yesterday, part of a nationwide tour organised by the New Zealand End-of-Life Choice movement.
The practice had been tolerated by the legal system for many years before a 2002 law change meant doctors could not be prosecuted or punished for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Both remain part of the criminal code.
In 35 years of the practice, fears of a ''slippery slope'' never materialised.
In his experience as a doctor, the practice could prolong life, because patients no longer feared pain and suffering. It meant they often enjoyed life longer than they had thought, because they had a choice.
Misconceptions and ''horrible stories'' about his country included fears visitors should be wary of hospitals in case a doctor ended their life. He showed 2013 figures demonstrating the practice was mostly conducted in the home.
Euthanasia was really about ending suffering, not ending life, although he accepted the distinction would not be accepted by everyone.
Opponents often claimed the Netherlands did not have an adequate palliative care system, but this was incorrect. Its palliative care system was high-performing and the two practices were complementary. It was important to note physical discomfort that could be relieved by palliative care was not the only reason cited by patients who wanted to end their life.
For many, other factors, like loss of independence, weighed more heavily than physical pain.
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide took an emotional toll on doctors. It was better since the law change, because the practice was in the open and doctors received support.
A request to die had to be approved by a family doctor who knew the patient well, and had to be approved by a second doctor.
The practice had the acceptance of the medical profession and the courts long before Parliament, partly because of the influence of a Christian party. However, even that party said that if it got back into power it would not reverse the law change.
Dr Jonquiere hoped the New Zealand Medical Association would relax its position on euthanasia from opposition to at least neutral, if not support.
