Doctors who provide online euthanasia consultations could face criminal charges after the Federal Court of Australia ruled the service the same as suicide under the law.
In a response to an application from Melbourne general practitioner Nicholas Carr, Justice Wendy Abraham ruled on Nov. 30 that “suicide” under the Commonwealth Criminal Code applied to the ending of a person’s life by “voluntary assisted dying.”
This means that it is illegal to provide someone with information on euthanasia—either through telehealth, a phone call, or email—that could encourage them to take their own life, even if it is legal under state law.
“If that communication is undertaken using a carriage service, that would breach the Commonwealth Offence Provisions but be authorised under the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act,” Justice Abraham said.
In his application to the Federal Court, Dr. Carr argued that “suicide” should not apply to “voluntary assisted dying,” as they were two separate forms of death with different meanings.
Dr. Carr also argued that the Criminal Code sought to prevent harm to vulnerable people from being pressured to take their own lives, and that voluntary assisted dying laws recognised that harm did not apply in the same way.
Additionally, Dr. Carr argued that the Criminal Code would undermine state and territory laws, as well as contradict a law that says the Commonwealth should not exclude or limit state and territory power.
In her judgment, Justice Abraham rejected those arguments, saying that when Criminal Code provisions were introduced in 2005, suicide “simply referred to the intentional taking of one’s own life, regardless of the circumstances in which that occurred.”
Euthanasia is Suicide According to the Natural Meaning of the Law: Judge
Ms. Abraham said that without a definition of suicide in the criminal code, its ordinary and natural meaning should apply.“The parliament saw fit not to define the term given that it was so firmly and universally used and understood at that point in time,” Ms. Abraham’s judgment said.
“Voluntary assisted dying, while a means carefully regulated and a societally approved means of a person intentionally taking their own life, remains a means of a person taking their own life.”
Dr. Carr said he was “massively disappointed” by the outcome, which was his final attempt after more than three years of advocacy.
A spokeswoman for federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said he is aware of the judgment, and that submissions concerning the proper interpretation of the Criminal Code were made on his behalf.
States Not On Board with Court Ruling
Victoria and Queensland have opposed the federal court ruling, calling on the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to allow patients access to voluntary assisted dying information by phone or via teleconference.A Victorian government spokesman described the ruling as “incredibly disappointing,” particularly for regional Victorians.
“The Commonwealth must amend the criminal code to allow Victorians to have important conversations about [voluntary assisted dying] over the phone or via teleconference—so all eligible Victorians, no matter where they live, can act on their preferences and access voluntary assisted dying as an end-of-life choice,” the spokesman said.
Moreover, Queensland Health Minister Shannon Fentiman accused the federal government of “standing in the way of Queenslanders getting access to voluntary assisted dying via telehealth.”
This comes just days after New South Wales (NSW) became the final state to introduce voluntary assisted dying laws, with Victoria being the first in 2017.
The voluntary assisted dying laws passed in NSW have followed other states that allow a person with an advanced and progressive illness—likely to be terminal within six months—to end their life following an eligibility assessment from two doctors.
They must also be at least 18 years of age, not under duress or pressure from another person, be able to make their own decisions, and have made an enduring or ongoing request for voluntary assisted dying.
“The medical evidence from across the world demonstrates time and time again that euthanasia laws–however well-intentioned—are subject to abuse and end the lives of vulnerable people,” he told The Epoch Times.
“Euthanasia advocates consistently push the idea of strict safeguards and vetting processes, only to loosen these safeguards and implement lower and lower thresholds for those wanting to end their life,” he said.
“The end result is always the same; laws become watered down and abused, and vulnerable people lose their life,” he added. “At a time of increased elder abuse and suicide, this is the wrong direction for public policy.”
Under the ruling, doctors can face criminal charges and a fine of up to $313,000 (100 penalty units) if found guilty.
