The Facts



The Roy Morgan national poll carried out in November 2017 shows that 88% of Western Australians support the legalisation of Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) to allow for better choice at the end of life, but despite this there's still no law in Western Australia. Here's our guide to some of the facts that surround the debate for Voluntary Assisted Dying laws. Misinformation and distortion of these facts has encouraged politicians not to act in a way voters clearly want them to. 


Australia has one of the best palliative care systems in the world, and we should be proud of it. But even Palliative Care Australia admits that it “cannot relieve all pain and suffering even with optimal care.” For that small percentage of patients who they can’t help, the suffering at the end of life can be intolerable.

The legalisation of voluntary assisted dying would give patients experiencing such suffering another choice. It should be used here just as it is used overseas: An option of last resort, when all other treatments have failed.


Opponents argue that once voluntary assisted dying legislation is introduced, it will inevitably be broadened to apply to those for whom it was never intended. They call this the ‘slippery slope’.

Over the last decade, numerous, wide-ranging, official inquiries into these laws have rejected allegations of the ‘slippery slope’ - most recently, a cross-party Victorian parliamentary inquiry. In its June 2016 report, handed down after 10 months of investigation, they found “rigorous safeguards, monitoring procedures and high levels of compliance” and “no evidence of institutional corrosion or the often cited ‘slippery slope’”.

Often opponents refer to the European laws, especially in Belgium and The Netherlands, to suggest that laws written to apply only to the terminally ill have since been broadened to provide access to those without terminal illness. This is incorrect – the laws in Europe were never written purely for the terminally ill, but for those with a ‘medically futile condition that causes unbearable suffering’. The overwhelming majority of people who use these laws have cancer, but they also allow people with degenerative and chronic illnesses, such as Motor Neurone Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, and Chronic Rheumatoid Arthritis, to ask for help to die. In very rare instances, people with long-term and extreme psychiatric suffering have also been helped. All of this is consistent with how the laws in Europe were written. In the USA, access to voluntary assisted dying is restricted to people with a terminal illness and 6 months or less to live. In more than 20 years of operation in the USA this law has never changed.


Some opponents have suggested that people with disabilities will be placed at risk if assisted dying is legalised. This is not true. Voluntary assisted dying laws come with strict eligibility criteria and strong safeguards to ensure they apply only to those for whom the law is written. To qualify a person has to have an extreme medical condition which, in the assessment of two doctors, independent of each other, is clearly leading to their death and which can no longer be treated in a way that will meaningfully ease their suffering. Disability, on its own, does not make a person eligible under this law.   

Further, the request for voluntary assisted dying cannot be made by anyone but the patient, who must be deemed to be mentally competent. Exhaustive, peer-reviewed evidence about how these laws operate overseas has not shown any increased threat to people with a disability, a fact confirmed by leading disability rights groups in those countries.


Some opponents have suggested that family members or carers could pressure an elderly patient to request assistance to die, for instance so that they may access an inheritance or the family estate sooner. Voluntary assisted dying laws come with strict eligibility criteria and strong safeguards to ensure they apply only to those for whom the law is written. To qualify a person has to have an extreme medical condition which, in the assessment of two doctors, independent of each other, is clearly leading to their death and which can no longer be treated in a way that will meaningfully ease their suffering. There is far more involved in the decision than a patient merely requesting it. The opinion of medical professionals that the patient’s condition meets strict criteria is required. Failure by doctors to follow the law means they risk losing their license or going to gaol.

As with the slippery slope argument, research in jurisdictions where voluntary assisted dying is legal demonstrates no evidence of elder abuse as a result of these laws, a fact confirmed by leading elderly rights groups in those countries.


Some opponents have suggested that the legalisation of voluntary assisted dying will lead to an increase in suicides, referred to as 'suicide contagion'. Suicide is entirely distinct from voluntary assisted dying. Leaving aside political suicide, it is often an act of desperation where there is no alternative. The head of the WA police union recently came out in support of voluntary assisted dying for this reason. In his own words: “People experiencing an irreversible deterioration in their health are taking their own lives, often in horrific circumstances. We need a compassionate assisted dying law to give people in certain circumstances a choice to die in a dignified way”.

This is what is being proposed for Western Australia: the ability of people who are terminally ill and suffering intolerably, to make a rational decision in consultation with their doctors and family to die a peaceful and dignified death at a time of their choosing.

There is no credible evidence of increased suicide rates as a result of assisted dying laws overseas.


Opponents to voluntary assisted dying laws sometimes refer to Belgium, which does have legislation allowing a child in a 'medically futile condition', and who is experiencing constant and unbearable suffering that cannot be alleviated, to request voluntary assisted dying. However, this law carries even greater safeguards, and stricter criteria, than the already strict laws relating to adults. Along with two doctors, a child psychiatrist has to confirm that the child knows what they are requesting. The child’s parents must also participate in, and approve of, the request. Passed into law by a two-thirds majority of the Belgian parliament, this is a recognition that even children can die from illnesses which, in spite of the best treatment, cause terrible suffering. Use of this law is extremely rare.

All the laws being proposed in Australia apply only to competent adults.


The Australian Medical Association currently opposes voluntary assisted dying laws, despite the fact that their membership is divided on this issue. However, the AMA represents only 29% of Australia’s doctors. There has never been a comprehensive survey of all Australian doctors on the issue, but the few that have been done show close to 50% support for a law for assisted dying. Some doctors have left the AMA because of its opposition to voluntary assisted dying. Others, such as the ‘Doctors for Assisted Dying Choice' group strongly support voluntary assisted dying legislation.


Voluntary assisted dying is voluntary and is about choice, and this applies to medical professionals as well as to patients. By law, there is no mandatory requirement for a doctor, who is ethically or morally opposed to voluntary assisted dying, to assist a patient in their request. Everyone involved, including doctors and nurses, has the right to opt out at any time.


A 2012 Newspoll survey showed that 88% of Anglicans and 77% of Catholics agreed that a doctor should be allowed to meet a request from a hopelessly ill patient for help to die.  

The 2013 ABC Vote Compass policy tool found that out of 1.4 million Australians, 75% supported the legalisation of assisted dying for the terminally ill. 

It also provided a breakdown based on religion, and the rate of support among Catholic respondents was 69.8%. 

While the Catholic and Anglican Church hierarchies are opposed to voluntary assisted dying, it does not speak for a majority of Australian Catholics.


'Terminal' is already a legally recognised term in Australia. Australian insurance companies accept a prognosis of less than 12 months to live for the payout of a life insurance policy. This is a long-standing practice and is considered uncontroversial.


During World War II, amongst many other atrocities, the Nazis conducted a program, described as euthanasia, known as the Aktion T4 program. It was not voluntary, nor does it have anything to do with voluntary assisted dying legislation. 

Voluntary assisted dying is voluntary, and is about giving better choice to those who are suffering beyond meaningful medical help. This choice can only be granted to a person found by medical professionals to fit strict criteria, who is mentally competent, and who has made the request themselves.

There is no link between voluntary assisted dying and what happened in Nazi Germany. To compare people who are needlessly suffering and seeking the choice of a compassionate end to their life to the thousands of souls who were murdered in the Aktion T4 program is not only a lie, it is also highly inflammatory and offensive to the memory of those who died and their descendants.

Facts kindly provided by Go Gentle Australia

How do I get involved?