Four MPs have tried to get Parliament to legalise voluntary euthanasia.

A bill that would legalise euthanasia under strict controls, has been given a legal stamp of approval that if passed, it would not infringe on basic human rights to life.

It's been welcomed by the bill's holder, ACT leader David Seymour, who said it debunked the "myths" put forward by critics that the bill was poorly drafted.

The report is a standard assessment by Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, which test all proposed legislation against the Bill of Rights Act.

KEVIN STENT/STUFF ACT leader and Epsom MP David Seymour says the Attorney General's report shuts down any argument that his euthanasia bill does not contain the necessary safeguards to protect the vulnerable.

Finlayson found the bill was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights' section pertaining to age - in a purely legal sense, the age restriction of 18 on Seymour's bill was discriminatory under the Act.

READ MORE:

* Parliamentary inquiry into record euthanasia submissions: 'note' response

* Euthanasia: How is it done, and what's it like putting down something you've vowed to care for?

* Helen Kelly: 'Why can't I have the option of assisted dying?'

* MPs to vote on euthanasia after bill places the issue back in front of Parliament

But it was fully consistent with the rights not to be deprived of life, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.

Seymour said he expected the report to provide assurance to MPs on the fence about supporting his bill, when it's expected to come before the house for its first reading in the next parliamentary term.

"Opponents will now need to explain why they would not allow dying people, in extreme suffering, to have a choice about how and when they die - rather than hiding behind those straw men," he said.

"I am particularly pleased that the report finds my bill consistent with the right not to be deprived of life.

NZN VIDEO Parliament to debate a bill that would allow voluntary euthanasia.

"The report says that the eligibility criteria are narrow enough, and the safeguards strict enough, that the bill will not cause wrongful deaths, and that assisted dying will be available only to the group the bill intends – incurably or terminally ill, and in unbearable suffering."

Finlayson's report only related to legal questions of Seymour's bill. It did not assess it against any moral, ethical, religious or clinical views.

Seymour said that on the question of the right not to be deprived of life, his bill was consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.

"This differs from the previous bill on assisted dying, in 2003. That bill was found to be inconsistent with the right not to be deprived of life. It didn't have all of the same safeguards that my bill contains."

Recently, a separate Parliamentary investigation into euthanasia detailed an overwhelmingly negative response by New Zealanders who took the time to submit to Parliament's Health Select Committee.

In a report to Parliament, generated from that investigation, MPs laid out the issues that sparked concern from more than 21,000 submissions. It also acknowledged a number of scientific polls that showed up to 75 per cent of New Zealanders were in favour of euthanasia.