The Federal Court has ruled that voluntary assisted dying is now considered suicide under criminal law. This decision has significant implications for doctors who provide information about euthanasia to their patients over the phone, as they could potentially face criminal charges.
Federal Court Justice Wendy Abraham made this ruling, stating that the term suicide as used in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act of 1995 applies to the act of ending a person’s life through voluntary assisted dying. Therefore, it is legally an offense for a doctor to use telehealth, email, or phone calls to counsel or incite someone to end their own life.
This ruling came about due to a challenge brought forward by Melbourne doctor Nick Carr, who is authorized to assist individuals seeking euthanasia. Dr. Carr questioned whether the term suicide in the Criminal Code Act applied to the ending of a person’s life in accordance with the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act of 2017 and the Voluntary Assisted Dying Regulations of 2018 in Victoria.
Dr. Carr argued that the term suicide was not adequately defined in the criminal code and therefore did not apply to voluntary assisted dying. He proposed an alternative declaration that specifically excluded the term suicide in relation to ending a person’s life through the authorized means outlined in the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act and Regulations.
However, Justice Abraham dismissed Dr. Carr’s arguments and upheld that assisting someone to die over the phone would indeed be an offense. She sided with the federal government’s position, which maintained that committing suicide in the criminal code referred to intentionally taking one’s own life, regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.
The judge further stated that authorized medical practitioners, like Dr. Carr, under the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act, are permitted or even required to provide information to individuals requesting access to voluntary assisted dying, as long as they meet the eligibility criteria. However, sharing such information through a carriage service, which includes telephone conversations, would breach the Commonwealth Offense Provisions.
It is important to note that giving assistance to a person under the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act using a mode of communication other than a carriage service would not be considered an offense.
This ruling comes just days after New South Wales (NSW) became the final state in Australia to legalize voluntary assisted dying. The legislation, first passed in Victoria in 2017, sets eligibility criteria that include being diagnosed with an advanced and progressive disease expected to lead to death within six months (or twelve months for neurodegenerative diseases) and experiencing unbearable suffering.
To qualify for voluntary assisted dying, patients must be over the age of 18 and have decision-making capacity. They must also demonstrate that they are not under duress or pressure from another individual, and they must have made an enduring request for this option of end-of-life care.
The court’s ruling raises concerns and challenges for medical practitioners who provide information and support to patients seeking voluntary assisted dying. The decision could have a significant impact on the delivery of telehealth services and the ability of doctors to provide remote consultations in relation to euthanasia. It remains to be seen how this ruling will be interpreted and its potential impact on the availability of voluntary assisted dying in Australia.
Overall, this ruling underscores the ongoing debate and legal complexities surrounding assisted dying and the challenges faced by doctors in providing end-of-life care to their patients.
