When enacting the End of Life Choice Act 2019 New Zealand’s Parliament followed the Australian state of Victoria’s lead by introducing a statutory prohibition on health practitioners initiating any discusion with a person that is, in substance, about assisted dying (AD). Intended as a safeguard, the prohibition is based on a perceived risk that presenting AD as an available choice may unduly influence some terminally ill patients to exercise the option of AD. Consequently, in the absence of a patient-initiated discussion the Act imposes a code of silence regarding AD. While the authority of the state to regulate health care professions in the interests of public health and safety is well established, laws that suppress the content of clinician speech within a therapeutic relationship warrant careful consideration, triggering questions regarding the appropriate scope of state intervention in the context of professional and clinical practice. This paper considers the prohibition through the lens of section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which provides that ‘[e]veryone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form’. Applying the rights-based analysis previously established by New Zealand’s Supreme Court to determine whether any limit on a protected right is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, we conclude that the prohibition is not a justifiable limitation on the right contained in section 14 and should be repealed.