Government Consults on Euthanasia Proposals

The ACT Government has opened a consultation period regarding proposals to enact euthanasia laws.

The term that is preferred is voluntary assisted dying or VAD. This terminology change seeks to emphasize that the proposal is voluntary – that is, a person chooses to die; and, to alter discussion around what is a eu-thanatos or a good death. The implication is that only a chosen death is a good one rather than death that is the result of natural disease, illness or accident.

The death of a person is always an occasion of sadness and, in some cases, it is also tragic and confronting.  Every death is also an integral part of the experience of being human. The history of humanity, medical intervention and Church teaching suggests that the preservation of life, the prevention of disease and the amelioration of suffering are central goals to our great mission – human flourishing or, as it is recorded in Scripture: that you may have life and have it to the full (John 10:10).

The Consultation period opened in February and concludes at the beginning of Easter. The Archdiocese believes that as many people as possible should take part in the Consultation. The Consultation materials and site for submissions can be found at: https://yoursayconversations.act.gov.au/voluntary-assisted-dying-in-ACT. We do not support the proposals but, if there is to be legislation, we seek to make sure it has full protections for the vulnerable.

There are 5 “Discussion Guides” issued to elicit responses. These cover:

• What is VAD? And states that it is a “safe and effective medical process”; that it is now legislated in all the Australian States.
• Who would be eligible? Would the person need to be terminally ill? How would the illness be verified? What kind of life expectancy should be required to be eligible? Should it be restricted to adults?
• What should be the processes involved? Should these require multiple hurdles? Should it require verification of the medical condition and prognosis before accessing the poison?
• What is the role of medical professionals? Should the legislation permit conscientious objection? Should the diagnosis and processes be conducted by specialists or physicians or should it be broadened to other health and allied health professionals? How should these people be protected from the usual laws in place to prevent criminal behaviours?
• How should this be evaluated? What should be the criteria for monitoring and evaluation of the processes?

The Archdiocese suggests that there are other questions prompted by this proposal and these discussion guides. Your thoughts about these could be included in any submission you might make.

• No political party in the ACT sought a mandate for this very significant legal change in 2020. Should those seeking to bring forward this Bill take it to the 2024 election?

That would be the most appropriate ‘poll’ to assess community support and would allow full transparent debate of the issues involved.

• The discussion paper stresses that “the ACT government is committed to the quality end-of-life choices” and yet, funding for palliative care in the ACT is inadequate to community needs, despite years of promises from the Government. If this proposal is about enhancing choice and people’s human rights, why is the ACT government not FULLY funding palliative care according to the needs of the ACT Community?

Clare Holland House is a specialist palliative care facility offering in-patient care and home-based palliative care. There are currently 28 beds at Clare Holland House but only 22 are funded by the ACT Government.  It is estimated that of those eligible for in-home palliative care – the place most people say they want to die, the service is only funded to cater to 50% of people in actual need. In addition, the ACT Government promised in the last election to fund an additional palliative care units in TCH to cover Southside residents – nothing has actually happened.

• Who should be eligible to access VAD? It wants to know if requests should only be from those living with a terminal illness. What kind of life expectancy should be anticipated before VAD? Should the access be limited to adults?

Behind these questions and as asked in The Canberra Times (11 February 2023), there are other implied questions: should anyone be able to request VAD at any time, regardless of their health status? Should children be able to make this kind of request and have it acted on?

• Discussion Guide 3 asks questions about the processes for seeking VAD; the administration of the substance; and, what should appear on death certificates.

The protection of human life, especially at its most vulnerable, is paramount – for this reason, there should be as many safeguards as possible. Should the patient not be in possession of a full understanding of their health, their illness and the processes involved in their dying? To ensure maximum protection should the request need to be made multiple times? That there should be independent witnesses and those involved should ensure that the patient is free from coercion.

In relation to the death records, should these not be fully and accurately recorded? If a patient is in a terminal phase from a work-related condition, such as asbestosis or silicosis, will VAD invalidate any compensation claim?

• Discussion Guide 4 focuses on the health professionals – the number who need to be involved in the processes, their specific profession and their qualifications. It also asks about conscientious objection by health providers.

In order to make such serious requests and decisions, should we not ask that all the advice to the patient come from the most highly qualified specialists? Should any pharmacist be able to dispense the ‘dying substance’? Would not a base level of protection for the community means that only a hospital pharmacy, with all its safeguards and protections, be the only safe place for these drugs?

A conscientious objection will be a major issue in this discussion. If the legislation offers people in Canberra the ‘right to die by their own choice’, will all health providers lose any choices of their own? Will it be possible for health providers to hold to the principle that they are part of professions and agencies that seek to save lives?  That their role is to seek human flourishing not to terminate it?

• The final Discussion Guide looks at evaluation and monitoring processes involved – what approvals would be necessary and how would the processes be reported

If, as envisaged, VAD, lethal substance or poisoning do not appear on death certificates, how will the number of people accessing VAD be counted? Will it be possible to monitor the precautions taken by health professionals if anyone with an Australian Health Professional Registration can accept a request and prescribe the ‘dying substance’? If the processes involved are minimal – a single request and a prescription, how will public safety be ensured?

The Church has always stood for the preservation of life and its flourishing – for this reason, the Archdiocese opposes this legislation. However, in the face of a government determined to enact it prior to the next election, we ask that members of the Archdiocese and all concerned citizens engage with the process – oppose it where possible and where it is not, seek to have maximum protections for people within the legislation.