How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

The purpose of this paper is to provide a basis from which to start an informed and rational dialogue in Australia about voluntary euthanasia (VE) and assisted suicide (AS). It does this by seeking to chart the broad landscape of issues that can be raised as relevant to how this conduct should be regulated by the law. It is not our purpose to persuade. Rather, we have attempted to address the issues as neutrally as possible and to canvass both sides of the argument in an even-handed manner. We hope that this exercise places the reader in a position to consider the question posed by this paper: How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide? In line with the approach taken in the paper, this question does not take sides in the debate. It simply asks how VE and AS should be regulated, acknowledging that both prohibition and legalisation of such conduct involve regulation. We begin by considering the wider legal framework that governs end of life decision-making. Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment that result in a person’s death can be lawful. This could be because, for example, a competent adult refuses such treatment. Alternatively, stopping or not providing treatment can be lawful when it is no longer in a person’s best interests to receive it. The law also recognises that appropriate palliative care should not attract criminal responsibility. By contrast, VE and AS are unlawful in Australia and could lead to prosecution for crimes such as murder, manslaughter or aiding and abetting suicide. But this is not to say that such conduct does not occur in practice. Indeed, there is a body of evidence that VE and AS occur in Australia, despite them being unlawful. There have been repeated efforts to change the law in this country, mainly by the minor political parties. However, apart from a brief period when VE and AS was lawful in the Northern Territory, these attempts to reform the law have been unsuccessful. The position is different in a small but increasing number of jurisdictions overseas where such conduct is lawful. The most well known is the Netherlands but there are also statutory regimes that regulate VE and/or AS in Belgium and Luxembourg in Europe, and Oregon and Washington in the United States. A feature of these legislative models is that they incorporate review or oversight processes that enable the collection of data about how the law is being used. As a result, there is a significant body of evidence that is available for consideration to assess the operation of the law in these jurisdictions and some of this is considered briefly here. Assisting a suicide, if done for selfless motives, is also legal in Switzerland, and this has resulted in what has been referred to as ‘euthanasia tourism’. This model is also considered. The paper also identifies the major arguments in favour of, and against, legalisation of VE and AS. Arguments often advanced in favour of law reform include respect for autonomy, that public opinion favours reform, and that the current law is incoherent and discriminatory. Key arguments against legalising VE and AS point to the sanctity of life, concerns about the adequacy and effectiveness of safeguards, and a ‘slippery slope’ that will allow euthanasia to occur for minors or for adults where it is not voluntary. We have also attempted to step beyond these well trodden and often rehearsed cases ‘for and against’. To this end, we have identified some ethical values that might span both sides of the debate and perhaps be the subject of wider consensus. We then outline a framework for considering the issue of how Australia should regulate VE and AS. We begin by asking whether such conduct should be criminal acts (as they presently are). If VE and AS should continue to attract criminal responsibility, the next step is to enquire whether the law should punish such conduct more or less than is presently the case, or whether the law should stay the same. If a change is favoured as to how the criminal law punishes VE and AS, options considered include sentencing reform, creating context-specific offences or developing prosecutorial guidelines for how the criminal justice system deals with these issues. If VE and AS should not be criminal acts, then questions arise as to how and when they should be permitted and regulated. Possible elements of any reform model include: ensuring decision-making is competent and voluntary; ascertaining a person’s eligibility to utilise the regime, for example, whether it depends on him or her having a terminal illness or experiencing pain and suffering; and setting out processes for how any decision must be made and evidenced. Options to bring about decriminalisation include challenging the validity of laws that make VE and AS unlawful, recognising a defence to criminal prosecution, or creating a statutory framework to regulate the practice. We conclude the paper where we started: with a call for rational and informed consideration of a difficult and sensitive issue. How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

This paper invites consideration of how Australia should regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. We have attempted to pose this question as neutrally as possible, acknowledging that both prohibition and legalisation of such conduct involve decisions about regulation. We begin by charting the wider field of law at the end of life, before considering the repeated, but ultimately unsuccessful, attempts at law reform in Australia. The situation in Australia is contrasted with permissive jurisdictions overseas where voluntary euthanasia and/or assisted suicide are lawful. We consider the arguments for and against legalisation of such conduct along with the available empirical evidence as to what happens in practice both in Australia and overseas. The paper concludes by outlining a framework for deliberating on how Australia should regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. We ask a threshold question of whether such conduct should be criminal acts (as they presently are), the answer to which then leads to a range of possible regulatory options.

Prosecutorial guidelines for voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide : autonomy, public confidence and high quality decision-making

This article proposes offence-specific guidelines for how prosecutorial discretion should be exercised in cases of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. Similar guidelines have been produced in England and Wales but we consider them to be deficient in a number of respects, including that they lack a set of coherent guiding principles. In light of these concerns, we outline an approach to constructing alternative guidelines that begins with identifying three guiding principles that we argue are appropriate for this purpose: respect for autonomy, the need for high quality prosecutorial decision-making and the importance of public confidence in that decision-making.

(Failed) voluntary euthanasia law reform in Australia: Two decades of trends, models and politics

Within Australia, there have been many attempts to pass voluntary euthanasia (VE) or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) legislation. From 16 June 1993 until the date of writing, 51 Bills have been introduced into Australian parliaments dealing with legalising VE or PAS. Despite these numerous attempts, the only successful Bill was the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 (NT), which was enacted in the Northern Territory, but a short time later overturned by the controversial Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 (Cth). Yet, in stark contrast to the significant political opposition, for decades Australian public opinion has overwhelmingly supported law reform legalising VE or PAS. While there is ongoing debate in Australia, both through public discourse and scholarly publications, about the merits and dangers of reform in this field, there has been remarkably little analysis of the numerous legislative attempts to reform the law, and the context in which those reform attempts occurred. The aim of this article is to better understand the reform landscape in Australia over the past two decades. The information provided in this article will better equip Australians, both politicians and the general public, to have a more nuanced understanding of the political context in which the euthanasia debate has been and is occurring. It will also facilitate a more informed debate in the future.

Moving from voluntary euthanasia to non-voluntary euthanasia: equality and compassion

The recent Dutch law legalising active voluntary euthanasia will reignite the euthanasia debate. An illuminating method for evaluating the moral status of a practice is to follow the implications of the practice to its logical conclusion. The argument for compassion is one of the central arguments in favour of voluntary active euthanasia. This argument applies perhaps even more forcefully in relation to incompetent patients. If active voluntary euthanasia is legalised, arguments based on compassion and equality will be directed towards legalising active non-voluntary euthanasia in order to make accelerated termination of death available also to the incompetent. The removal of discrimination against the incompetent has the potential to become as potent a catch-cry as the right to die. However, the legalisation of non-voluntary euthanasia is undesirable. A review of the relevant authorities reveals that there is no coherent and workable "best interests" test which can be invoked to decide whether an incompetent patient is better off dead. This provides a strong reason for not stepping onto the slippery path of permitting active voluntary euthanasia.

Voluntary palliated starvation : A lawful and ethical way to die?

Increasingly, individuals want control over their own destiny. This includes the way in which they die and the timing of their death. The desire for self-determination at the end of life is one of the drivers for the ever-increasing number of jurisdictions overseas that are legalising voluntary euthanasia and/or assisted suicide, and for the continuous attempts to reform state and territory law in Australia. Despite public support for law reform in this field, legislative change in Australia is unlikely in the near future given the current political landscape. We argue that there may be another solution which provides competent adults with control over their death and to have any pain and symptoms managed by doctors, but which is currently lawful and consistent with prevailing ethical principles. ‘Voluntary palliated starvation’ refers to the process which occurs when a competent individual chooses to stop eating and drinking, and receives palliative care to address pain, suffering and symptoms that may be experienced by the individual as he or she approaches death. In this article, we argue that, at least in some circumstances, such a death would be lawful for the individual and doctors involved, and consistent with principles of medical ethics.

The Kuhse-Singer euthanasia survey: why it fails to undermine the slippery slope argument - comparing apples and apples

A survey published in the Medical Journal of Australia in 1997 showed that the incidence of non-voluntary euthanasia in Australia was higher than in the Netherlands. Euthanasia is illegal in Australia, while it is openly practiced in the Netherlands. It has been suggested that the results of the survey undermine the slippery slope argument against legalising euthanasia. This is wrong. Although at the time of the survey, euthanasia was formally prohibited by the law in Australia, the medical and legal culture was such that doctors could practice euthanasia with impunity — in certain circumstances euthanasia by doctors was effectively condoned. This is in fact supported by the findings of the survey. The survey suggests that there were approximately 6,700 cases of euthanasia in Australia in the year from July 1994 to June 1995 — not one of which was prosecuted, let alone resulted in a conviction. Ultimately the survey merely shows that in a climate where voluntary euthanasia is tolerated, wide scale abuses (in the form of nonvoluntary euthanasia) occur. Paradoxically the results of the survey give further support to the slippery slope argument.

Does being against euthanasia legislation equate to being anti-euthanasia?

This study investigated issues raised in qualitative data from our previous studies of health professionals and community members, which suggested that being opposed to euthanasia legislation did not necessarily equate to being anti-euthanasia per se. A postal survey of 1002 medical practitioners, 1000 nurses and 1200 community members was undertaken. In addition to a direct question on changing the law to allow active voluntary euthanasia (AVE), four statements assessed attitudes to euthanasia with or without a change in legislation. Responses were received from 405 doctors (43%), 429 nurses (45%) and 405 community members (38%). Compared with previous studies there was a slight increase in support for a change in the law from medical practitioners, a slight decrease in support from community members and almost no change among nurses. Different interpretations of the results of the four attitude questions are possible, depending on the perspective of the interpreter.

Prosecutorial discretion in assisted dying in Canada : a proposal for charging guidelines

An Expert Panel of the Royal Society of Canada and a Select Committee of the Québec National Assembly both recently recommended the issuance of permissive guidelines for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion on voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide and “medical aid in dying” respectively. It seems timely, therefore, to propose a set of offence-specific guidelines for how prosecutorial discretion should be exercised in cases of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canadian provinces and territories. We take as our starting point the only existing guidelines of this sort currently in force in the world (i.e. the British Columbia Guidelines, and the England and Wales Guidelines). In light of certain concerns we have with these guidelines, we outline an approach to constructing guidelines for Canadian jurisdictions that begins with identifying three guiding principles we argue are appropriate for this purpose (respect for autonomy, the need for high-quality prosecutorial decision making, and the importance of public confidence in that decision making), and ends with a concrete and detailed set of proposed guidelines. The paper is consistent with, but also extends, the work of the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on End of Life Decision Making. Un panel d’expert de la Société Royale du Canada et une Commission spéciale de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec ont tous les deux récemment recommandé que soit émises des directives permettant exercice d’un pouvoir de poursuite discrétionnaire concernant l’euthanasie et le suicide assisté et « l’assistance médicale pour mourir », respectivement. Il semble donc à propos de proposer une série de directives spécifiques aux offenses sur la façon dont le pouvoir de poursuite discrétionnaire dans les territoires et provinces canadiennes serait appliqué dans les cas d’euthanasie et de suicide assisté. Nous avons pris comme point de départ les seules directives de la sorte existant déjà (c’est-à-dire celle de la Colombie-Britannique et de l’Angleterre et du Pays de Galles). Par contre, compte tenu de certaines de nos réserves concernant ces directives, nous avons ensuite établi les grandes lignes d’une approche permettant de mettre sur pied des directives pour les juridictions canadiennes, qui débute par l’identification de trois principes de base qui sont selon nous appropriées à cette fin (respect de l’autonomie, besoin pour une grande qualité de prise de prise de décision du poursuivant et la confiance du public envers cette prise de décision) pour se terminer par une série de directives concrètes et détaillées. Le présent document est compatible avec le travail de la Société royale du Canada tout en en augmentant la portée.

The right to choose an assisted death : time for legislation?

The legal framework that operates at the end of life in Australia needs to be reformed. • Voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide are currently unlawful. • Both activities nevertheless occur not infrequently in Australia, in part because palliative care cannot relieve physical and psychological pain and suffering in all cases. • In this respect, the law is deficient. The law is also unfair because it doesn’t treat people equally. Some people can be helped to die on their own terms as a result of their knowledge and/or connections while some are able to hasten their death by the refusal of life-sustaining treatment. But others do not have access to the means for their life to end. • A very substantial majority of Australians have repeatedly expressed in public opinion polls their desire for law reform on these matters. Many are concerned at what they see is happening to their loved ones as they reach the end of their lives, and want the confidence that when their time comes they will be able to exercise choice in relation to assisted dying. • The most consistent reason advanced not to change the law is the need to protect the vulnerable. There is a concern that if the law allows voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide for some people, it will be expanded and abused, including pressures being placed on highly dependent people and those with disabilities to agree to euthanasia. • But there is now a large body of experience in a number of international jurisdictions following the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. This shows that appropriate safeguards can be implemented to protect vulnerable people and prevent the abuse that opponents of assisted dying have feared. It reveals that assisted dying meets a real need among a small minority of people at the end of their lives. It also provides reassurance to people with terminal and incurable disease that they will not be left to suffer the indignities and discomfort of a nasty death. • Australia is an increasingly secular society. Strong opposition to assisted death by religious groups that is based on their belief in divine sanctity of all human life is not a justification for denying choice for those who do not share that belief. • It is now time for Australian legislators to respond to this concern and this experience by legislating to enhance the quality of death for those Australians who seek assisted dying.

L’assistance médicalisée pour mourir demandée dans le cadre des soins de fin de vie : enjeux d’une éthique réflexive et critique pour l’humanisation de la mort

Par une approche analytique, cette étude en éthique clinique a examiné la problématique de la demande d’assistance médicalisée pour mourir formulée dans le cadre des soins de fin de vie. Partant du fait que cette demande sollicite les soignants dans leur savoir et leur savoir-faire, surtout dans leur savoir-être, cette étude rend d’abord compte d’un fait : bon gré mal gré l’interdit de l’euthanasie par la loi et la déontologie médicale, ainsi que le débat contradictoire à son sujet qui dure déjà voici quelques décennies, il arrive de temps à autres que les soignants œuvrant en soins de fin de vie, soient confrontés à une demande d’assistance médicalisée pour mourir. Cette demande qui émane de certaines personnes en fin de vie et / ou de leurs proches, est souvent source de malaise pour les soignants à l’endroit de qui elle crée des défis majeurs et fait naître des dilemmes éthiques importants. Plus particulièrement, cette demande interroge toujours la finalité même des soins de fin de vie : est-ce que l’aide pour mourir fait partie de ces soins ? En réponse à cette question difficile, cette démarche réflexive de soignant chercheur en éthique montre qu’il est difficile de donner une réponse binaire en forme de oui / non ; il est difficile de donner une réponse d’application universalisable, et de définir une généralisable conduite à tenir devant une telle demande, car chaque cas est singulier et unique à son genre. Cette étude montre prioritairement que l’humanisation de la mort est à la fois un enjeu éthique important et un défi majeur pour notre société où la vie des individus est médicalisée de la naissance à la mort. En conséquence, parce que la demande d’assistance médicalisée pour mourir sollicite les soignants dans leur savoir et leur savoir-faire, cette étude montre toute l’importance de la réflexivité et de la créativité que doivent développer les soignants pour apporter une réponse constructive à chaque demande : une réponse humanisant le mourir et la mort elle-même, c’est-à-dire une réponse qui soit, sur le plan éthique, raisonnable et cohérente, une réponse qui soit sur le plan humain, porteuse de sens. D’où, outre l’axiologie, cette démarche réflexive montre que l’interdisciplinarité, la sémantique, l’herméneutique et les grilles d’analyse en éthique, constituent des outils réflexifs efficaces pouvant mieux aider les soignants dans leur démarche. Sur quelles bases éthiques, les soignants doivent-ils examiner une demande d’assistance médicalisée pour mourir, demande qui se présente toujours sous la forme d’un dilemme éthique? Cette question renvoie entre autre au fait que cette demande sollicite profondément les soignants dans leur savoir-être en relation des soins de fin de vie. Aussi bonnes les unes que les autres, qu’on soit pour ou contre l’euthanasie, plusieurs stratégies et méthodes d’analyse sont proposées aux soignants pour la résolution des conflits des valeurs et des dilemmes éthiques. Mais, ce n’est pas sur cette voie-là que cette étude invite les soignants. C’est plutôt par leur réflexivité et leur créativité, enrichies principalement par leur humanisme, leur expérience de vie, leur intuition, et secondairement par les différentes méthodes d’analyse, que selon chaque contexte, les soignants par le souci permanent de bien faire qui les caractérisent, trouveront toujours par eux-mêmes ce qui convient de faire dans l’ici et maintenant de chaque demande. C’est pourquoi, devant une demande d’assistance médicalisée pour mourir qui leur est adressée dans le cadre des soins de fin de vie, cette démarche éthique invite donc les soignants à être « des cliniciens créatifs, des praticiens réflexifs» . C’est pour cette raison, sur le plan proprement dit de la réflexion éthique, cette étude fait apparaître les repères de l’éthique humaniste de fin de vie comme bases axiologiques sur lesquels les soignants peuvent construire une démarche crédible pour répondre au mieux à cette demande. L’éthique humaniste de fin de vie située dans le sillage de l’humanisme médical , où l’humain précède le médical, renvoie au fait qu’en soins de fin de vie où émerge une demande d’aide à la mort, entre le demandeur de cette aide et le soignant, tout doit être basé sur une confiante relation d’homme à homme, même si du côté du soignant, son savoir être dans cette relation est aussi enrichi par sa compétence, ses connaissances et son expérience ou son savoir-faire. Basée sur l’humanité du soignant dans la démarche de soins, l’éthique humaniste de fin de vie en tant que pratique réflexive émerge de la créativité éthique du soignant lui-même et de l’équipe autour de lui ; et cette éthique se situe entre interrogation et transgression, et se définit comme une éthique « du vide-de-sens-à-remplir » dans un profond souci humain de bien faire. Car, exclue l’indifférence à la demande de l’assistance médicalisée pour mourir, son acceptation ou son refus par le soignant, doit porter sur l’humanisation de la mort. Cette dernière étant fondamentalement définie par rapport à ce qui déshumanise la fin de vie.

Ouvrir la porte à des pratiques euthanasiques? Pas aussi simple que les Rapports de la Société royale, du Barreau du Québec et de la Commission spéciale sur le mourir dans la dignité le laissent croire

[Préciser ici le type de document. Par défaut, dans Papyrus, tous les documents de la revue sont du type "Article":] Commentaire / Commentary Compte-rendu / Review Éditoral / Editorial Étude de cas / Case study Lettre à l'éditeur / Letter to the Editor Actes de colloque / Conference Proceedings

The Right to Die Debate: The Demonization of Dr. Kevorkian and the Creation of a Moral Panic Surrounding Physician-Assisted Suicide in the United States

The Right to Die Debate is a recent but highly controversial moral matter. In particular, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is an issue that has been evaded by the medical community for years. As of 1990, most states had never encountered the issue before and therefore did not have any laws in place to prohibit PAS (Strate et. al, 2005). Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a retired pathologist from Royal Oak Michigan was the first to publicly address PAS. He brought the issue into the limelight through a bizarre and crude series of assisted deaths that had a lasting impact on not only the Right to Die Debate as whole, but on public policy and both federal and state governmental agendas. This study focuses on the way in which the media, in particular the New York Times (NYT) has portrayed Dr. Jack Kevorkian as incompetent, morally culpable and in an overall negative light in the past twenty years. Applying Stanley Cohen’s 1972 theory of moral panic, a content analysis of NYT media publications between 1990 and 1999 supports Cohen’s theory and reveals that the media has created a moral panic surrounding Kevorkian. This has in turn led to public policy that prevents both terminally ill individuals and their doctors from having a desirable choice; that of voluntary euthanasia and PAS.

Morningness-eveningness orientation, optimal time-of-day and attitude change: Evidence for the systematic processing of a persuasive communication

This study investigates the effects of morningness-eveningness orientation and time-of-day on persuasion. In an attitude change paradigm, 120 female participants read a persuasive message that consisted of six counter-attitudinal arguments (anti-voluntary euthanasia) either in the morning (8:30 a.m.) or in the evening (7:00 p.m.). Attitude change was assessed by measuring attitudes towards the target issue before and after exposure to the message. Message processing was assessed by thought-listing and message recall tasks. Self-reported mood and arousal were monitored throughout. Participants were classified into M- and E-types according to their scores on the Horne and Ostberg (1976) MEQ questionnaire. When tested at their respective optimal time-of-day (i.e., morning for M-types/evening for E-types), M- and E-types reported higher energetic arousal, greater agreement with the message, greater message-congruent thinking, and a propensity for superior message recall compared to M- and E-types tested at their nonoptimal time-of-day (i.e., evening for M-types/morning for E-types). The attitude change in those tested at their optimal time-of-day was mediated by the level of message-congruent thinking. Results are interpreted in terms of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.