An important decision handed down recently in the Federal Court of Australia rules that part of Victoria’s euthanasia law (the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 (Vic)(“VADA 2017”)) is invalid, as it authorises assistance with suicide, which is prohibited by Federal law. The decision, of Abrahams J as a single judge in the Federal Court, is Carr v Attorney-General (Cth) [2023] FCA 1500 (30 November 2023). The implication is that similar provisions of other State and Territory laws are also invalid. The relevant federal law, sections 474.29A and 474.29B of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, contained in the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), in broad terms, makes it an offence to assist or encourage someone to commit suicide through use of a “carriage service”, most commonly by use of a telephone (either a voice call or a text message), email, or some internet service.
In my opinion laws like the VADA 2017 are bad for the community. Western society has long had strong prohibitions on taking one’s own life. At the end of life when terminal illness is involved, we have developed palliative care now to the point where on the whole serious pain is not an issue. Of course decisions can be taken when death is imminent to make someone comfortable, even if this incidentally leads to a small hastening of death. But VAD 2017 and similar laws have crossed the line into a world where a person can give up on life even when serious pain and imminent death are not involved, and these laws force doctors to be takers of life, rather than healers. They also often impose serious burdens on the religious freedom of practitioners and organisations with a strong commitment to the value of life who are pressured, or sometimes forced, to take part in these procedures.
(For excellent commentary on end of life issues generally, see this page of resources from Ethicentre. In particular, see this comment from Megan Best on problems with the current assisted dying laws. For previous comment on this blog about these laws, see here and here.)
In this context it is good to see a narrowing of the operation of the laws. The effect of the decision in Carr will not be to remove all the bad features of the laws- face to face consultations and advice by post are still available. But they should give medical practitioners asked to participate in these processes serious cause to reflect as to whether they might be subject to penalties under federal law.
Law and Religion Australia 