Allan Government plans to liberalise the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act

Published on August 27, 2025August 30, 2025 by EF TeamLeave a comment

The Victorian Labor state government plans to pass a bill in 2025 to amend the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 to remove checks which had been designed to protect the lives of terminally ill patients.

Under the subterfuge of claiming to be making the Victorian Voluntary Assisted Dying Act (VAD) “fairer” the state
government says it will put the changes to parliament before the end of 2025.

A news release of 20 February 2025 from the Premier’s office reads “. . . the Labor government will rewrite
legislation to improve access to voluntary assisted dying, by bringing it into line with other jurisdictions.”

The phrase, “to improve access to voluntary assisted dying” actually means that euthanasia and doctor assisted
suicide will be performed more freely with the present checks and balances having been removed in the proposed
bill.

When the Victorian government talks about “bring it (the legislation) into line with other jurisdictions” this means that the government will liberalise the present legislation to make it comparable to the acts in other states which are more pro-euthanasia and more liberal on doctor assisted suicide.

Removing the ban on raising Voluntary Assisted Dying with patients

The present ban on health professionals raising the subject of voluntary assisted dying is to be removed.

The removal of what is commonly called the “gag law” will expose patients to health professionals who are
supporters of voluntary assisted dying and who are happy to raise the subject of their patients choosing the option
of being killed by direct euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide.

Victorian Health Minister, Mary-Anne Thomas claims, “More needs to be done to ensure that people have access to
compassionate end of life care.” What Ms Thomas is actually saying is that health care professionals are to be
permitted by the removal of the present “gag law” to bring up with patients the option to choose to be killed by
euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide. Doctors actually killing their patients or assisting them to kill themselves by
suicide is definitely not end of life care. Introducing this radical change in the law is quite the contrary.

RTLA opposes the changing the present act to allow health practitioners to raise with their patients the whole
subject of euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide as an option.

Health care professionals are there to care for the lives of their patients and never to be the purveyors of death
even if patients are terminally ill. At the time in their lives when terminally ill patients are most vulnerable, it is wrong to allow health care professionals to propose to their patients that their lives could be deliberately ended by
euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide.

Further, the risk of coercion is far greater if health practitioners were permitted to initiate discussions on what may
be described as voluntary assisted dying. There is often an imbalance of authority in discussions between health practitioners and patients.

It may be argued that coercion can be rejected as highly improbable. However, when there is an imbalance of
status between the health care professional and the patient, there remains the distinct possibility that can and will
happen.

Another compelling argument is the reality that even the mere mention of the possibility of the patient choosing to
end their life risks that patients could very easily think that they have become a burden to others and decide to go
along with option put to them by their health care professional i.e choose to end their lives. Likewise, patients
facing an option to end their lives may conclude that for everybody’s sake they would be better off dead and
choose to end their lives.

Forcing health care professionals to give information about voluntary assisted dying

RTLA strongly objects to the government’s proposal to require all health care professionals who, as a matter of
conscience, are opposed to even giving any form of information regarding access to euthanasia or doctor assisted
suicide, to give information to patients on voluntary assisted dying.

For the Victorian Labor government to undermine and deny the right of conscientious objection on this life and death matter is a direct assault on the civil right of any citizen to freedom of conscience. This proposal from the state government is an egregious and extreme violation of the human rights of health care professionals and deserves condemnation.

If the unthinkable should eventuate and this violation of human rights be enacted in Victoria, it would force medical practitioners to choose from drastic options:

To violate their own consciences and act in what is for them in an immoral way. In the long term such an
action would lead to grave psychological and personal harm;
To contravene the amended Voluntary Assisted Dying Act, which would lead to criminal sanctions, possible
imprisonment, possible heavy fines and certainly loss of employment as a health care professional;
To resign as a health care professional and so end their professional career;
To move to another state where their right to freedom of conscience would be respected.

The gravity of these options clearly shows what is at stake.

Extending the period for prognosis of expected death to twelve months

RTLA opposes the proposed amendment to widen access by extending the present period for a prognosis of
expected death from six months to twelve months.

RTLA notes an initial argument for VAD was that terminally ill patients should be able to end their lives so avoiding unnecessary suffering. With the benefit of modern medicine, such suffering is limited to the final stage of illnesses, so the present six-month prognosis can be considered unwarranted. Moving to a twelve-month prognosis can be judged to be simply excessive and not justified.

A patient prognosis, and certainly not even with any treatment, can be an uncertain prognosis, but could easily be
classified as being a twelve-month prognosis under the proposed change to the Victorian VAD Act. Resulting from
this change it can be reasonably said that all patients with a diagnosed terminal illness will be able to access
euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide despite their having a definite possibility of surviving up to five years or more
after their initial diagnosis.

Shortening the period between a first and final request for VAD to five days

RTLA opposes any amendment which shortens the period between the first request and the final request for
euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide under the act.

A decision to end one’s life is irreversible. Patients need time to reflect on their decision – to be assured in their
own mind they have not made rash decision. Patients who have a terminal condition are fragile. Such patients do
benefit from sufficient time for them to think over the decision to end their lives and possibly to change their minds.
Five days in simply not enough time for this process to calmly evolve.

The current nine-day period allows a patient the time and mental space to calmly think over their decision.

Conclusion

Detailed analysis of the amendments to the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 planned by the Allan Labor
government shows how dangerous these amendments are to the protection of human life in Victoria. Right to Life
Australia and all committed to the protection of human life will campaign hard to defeat all of these amendments.

by Eugene Ahern, The Right to Life Australia Inc

The Right to Life Australia Inc. defends the right to life of all human beings from conception until natural death. We lobby government for legal protection of the most vulnerable in society – the unborn baby, elderly, sick and those with disabilities.

Assisted Suicide: are we failing our loved ones?

Published on August 22, 2025August 22, 2025 by EF TeamLeave a comment

The rapid increase in the number of euthanasia and assisted suicide regimes may, in part at least, point to a failure by families and other support networks to show vulnerable people they are truly loved and valued.

Advocates for euthanasia and assisted dying often cite the stories of those who experienced or witnessed others experiencing the debilitating symptoms of life-limiting diseases like cancer or motor neurone disease. They speak of the loss of mobility, or intolerable pain as reasons why people choose to take their own lives.

Reading between the lines, the motive for some making this choice may be wanting to exert control over a situation that is, to a large degree, beyond human control. Some even readily admit that this is the reason behind their choice. Yet for others, choosing to deliberately end their lives may be a sign that they were failed by those who had the greatest responsibility for ensuring their wellbeing.

A cry for help

In her article on assisted suicide, Canada’s Assisted Suicide Regime Is the West’s Cry for Help, Kathryn Lopez draws attention to the underlying reasons for the expansion of euthanasia laws in the West. She notes the experience of one patient who had requested assisted suicide until he realised that it was the feeling of being abandoned by his family that was making his feel that way. Once the realisation was made, the idea of killing himself no longer held any attraction.

Lopez also writes of an order of religious nuns who nurse patients at the end of their lives. She says the nuns have found that their loving attention and literal end-of-life “care” means that their vulnerable patients never request to be euthanised.

That the burgeoning euthanasia industry reflects a failure to care for the vulnerable is reflected in statements by medical professionals. One of those is Dr Bojana Beovic, president of the Medical Chamber of Slovenia. Assisted suicide was recently legalised in Slovenia following a referendum and was opposed by Dr. Beovic. She notes that this kind of law ignores the reasons why vulnerable people choose assisted suicide, offering them death instead of assistance with solving their problems. She says,

“Their life is coming to an end, they are elderly, they do not feel they are useful in society, and the best thing is that they leave this world and their family members. The law is formed in a way that there is no method that is acceptable to the patient himself for relieving his troubles and improving his state”.

Alarming abuses and statistics

Questions about family support and safeguarding measures become more urgent when current statistics are analysed. In jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal, those statistics are alarming. For example, in New Zealand, assisted suicides and euthanasia have seen a 37% increase over the past year, and now account for 1.25% of all deaths. Notably, fewer doctors are willing to provide assisted suicide and euthanasia, with the number falling by twenty over the past two years. Could it be that doctors realise they are not acting in their patients’ best interests by suggesting they kill themselves?

In the Netherlands, a staggering 10,000 people per year are being put to death by euthanasia or assisted suicide. This includes children under the age of 18 and even babies under 12 months. Psychiatric patients are increasingly requesting assisted suicide and non-terminal, elderly subjects have become common.

Yet even the Netherlands lags behind Canada in terms of sheer numbers, with 15,000 deaths being recorded there in 2023. Kathryn Lopez cites terrifying examples of Canadians who have been put to death for merely experiencing mental illness or homelessness, with even deafness being grounds for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID). This prompts us to question why families and friends are not ensuring that their loved ones are being protected from overzealous or unscrupulous advocates of euthanasia and assisted suicide. As well as reducing the desire for an early death, close interpersonal relationships should provide a built-in safeguard for vulnerable people.

This becomes even more important as the evidence of systemic failures in safeguarding against abuses grows. A Freedom of Information investigation in British Columbia recently revealed that the oversight unit of its MAID programme is recording a huge number of mistakes and safety violations. This includes a rate of error among assessments for assisted suicide at almost 5%, meaning that in one year around 135 people who failed to meet the criteria were put to death. Also recorded in its files are thousands of paperwork errors and a significant conflict of interest involving a senior MAID administrator.

Left behind

It is not always the patients who choose assisted dying that are the victims in this scenario. Just as with a non-medical suicide, loved ones are often left behind to deal with the aftermath.

A recent tragic story exemplifies the trauma suffered by those who aren’t aware of their loved ones’ intention to take their own lives. A British woman who committed assisted suicide at a Swiss clinic had told her family she was going on holiday. Even her partner was unaware of her intention. The family was notified after the fact by a text message notifying them that their mother’s ashes would be sent to them by post. The family is concerned that the woman may not have been in her right mind when she made the decision and is seeking action against the assisted suicide provider.

Under proposed assisted dying legislation in the UK, there is no obligation for families to be involved in their loved one’s decision. Speaking about the case, a spokesman for UK Right to Life noted that, “It is precisely those in the best position to provide support in living, the family, who are not required to be involved at any stage and who may only find out about the death of a loved one after it has already happened”.

Even among those who approve of assisted suicide, there lurks the suspicion that the needs of their loved ones were not being met. Family members left behind allude to unknown levels of pain or unnoticed feelings of loneliness or of being a burden. These are serious regrets for people to harbour after an irreversible decision like assisted suicide.

We must learn from abortion

Kathryn Lopez points to a normalisation on the part of medical authorities who want to make suggesting an early death for a loved one as mainstream as the choice to abort one’s own child. Indeed, as with abortion, the media is also playing a large role in pushing the pro-euthanasia narrative. Yet, as with abortion, cracks in the system are already evident, as is the deep regret of those who failed to protect their loved ones in their time of greatest need.

It is to be hoped that this latest attempt at playing God will be halted before it plays out to the same extent as has abortion, which has ravaged society by its cruel disregard for human life. The antidote to both these scourges is a return to a truly sacrificial love which sees through temporary crises to the hope of a better life beyond.

by Kathy Clubb

Powerful statement against euthanasia from 1939

Published on July 18, 2025July 18, 2025 by EF TeamLeave a comment

Viscount Fitzalan of Derwent gave this prescient speech to the House of Lords in London in 1939, in opposition to a bill put forward to legalise voluntary euthanasia.

Viscount Fitzalan of Derwent had given Notice that, on the Motion for the Second Reading, he would
move, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Viscount said:

My Lords, both the noble Lords who have spoken in introducing this Bill have alluded to the late Lord Moynihan, and I wish to do the same. I wish to associate myself with what they said with regard to the deceased Peer, whose loss we all deplore, and I do so especially because it was my privilege to be on terms of personal friendship with him, which I greatly valued, and of which I shall always bear a happy memory. I wish to allude to him also in respect of another point. He is reported as having said, in a speech which he made on this question, that denominations of Christians who were opposed to this measure ought to stand aside, and not to interfere with or inhibit those in favour of any measure of euthanasia. I must be allowed to say, with the greatest possible respect, that I absolutely and entirely repudiate any such suggestion. Why any of us who oppose this measure on account of our religious tenets should also be deprived of opposition to it on the ground of its merits, and also because we may consider it detrimental to the welfare of our country, I cannot conceive.

I entirely object to any such argument whatever. Of course the religious question comes in. It cannot be ignored. I myself shall endeavour in a few moments to say a few words with reference to the religious side of this question. I do so with great diffidence and with great hesitation. It is very difficult for a layman in this House to speak of matters on religious grounds, and I would ask the friendly sympathy of your Lordships when I endeavour to make a remark or two upon them. At the same time, for the moment I would venture to say a word or two on other provisions of this Bill. There are the very complicated provisions for the administration of the Bill if it ever becomes an Act. I have no doubt they will be alluded to by other speakers, and I will not take up your Lordships’ time by dwelling on them now, but would like to say that, notwithstanding the voluntary character of this Bill, if it became an Act I should be indeed sorry for the relatives of the patient, who would have great responsibility thrust upon them. I should be still more sorry for the doctors who would have placed upon them the responsibility of perpetrating the act; and I should be most sorry of all for the unfortunate patient, who would be exposed to the great mental strain and anxiety while all the formulas laid down by this Bill are being prepared for his demise.

It is quite true, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord opposite, that there is considerable weight of medical opinion in favour of this Bill, and he is fortunate in having here the two noble Lords, my noble friend Lord Dawson of Penn and my noble friend Lord Horder—if they are going to support this Bill. That I do not know. Whatever one does, I am certain the other will, because they always hunt in couples. But personally have never been rash enough to place myself under their professional care. I ought perhaps to hasten to admit that I have advised friends of mine to run the risk and, I think I may say, with more or less success. At the same time, notwithstanding the weight of medical opinion in this House, and outside it as well, in favour of the Bill, there is also a very great deal against. In my humble opinion the medical profession are very apt to be carried away by purely materialistic motives—naturally. They witness a great deal of pain and suffering and they are anxious to do all that can be done to alleviate it. But may I most respectfully point out to my two noble friends—if they are in favour of this Bill—that their business is to cure and not to kill, and I earnestly hope that the time may come when, with the advancement of science, of which I am sure they will take every heed, the alleviation of pain and suffering will be much greater than it is now.

Incidentally I should like to say that I cannot congratulate the noble Lord on the Title he has given to this Bill. Instead of giving it a cumbersome classical Title, I wish he had given it good plain English words, understandable by the people, and call the Bill what it is, a Bill to legalise murder and suicide, because, after all, that is what it amounts to. Many of your Lordships who have been interested in this question will have noticed that there have been many articles and letters in the Press on both sides of the question. The other day I came across a letter signed by an old country doctor—of forty years standing, he said. He was very critical of the Bill as a whole, but what struck me particularly in his letter was that he said we were getting too soft as a nation and too sensitive to pain. I have no wish to volunteer for any greater degree of pain or suffering than is likely to fall to my share, but I must say that when I read that letter I could not but feel that there was something in it; and when you think of the modern mania for luxury I cannot help thinking it is rather a warning to us against the danger of the degeneration of the race. I also noticed the other day that an eminent physician, a gentleman in the Civil Service, had expressed his opinion on euthanasia. He said that, even if it was voluntary, it was pregnant with criminal possibilities. I submit that we ought to be most careful in considering what the possibilities may be and the confusion that may arise if this Bill ever becomes law.

But now to return to the religious side of the question. It is quite true as regards my own faith that we are in an advantageous position in these matters, that owing to the teaching and authority of our Church we have certain safeguards and a guide and help in coming to a decision. But this is not entirely a matter for the Christian Churches. This Bill is not opposed only because it is condemned by the Church, it is not opposed only on Christian and moral grounds, it is opposed because it is contrary to the law of nature. We do not oppose it because the Church condemns it, but because the law of nature brands it as evil and a cowardly act. What about other people? What about the Jews? Are they in favour of this change? I am sure we all justly regard the Jews as being a humane race, but I am assured that there is not an orthodox Jew in the world who would not oppose this measure tooth and nail. What about the Mahomedans? Do they approve a measure of this kind? Not at all. They consider it to be contrary to the natural law and the law of God. Of course, if this question is to be considered, as I am sure it will not be by noble Lords in this House, as if there was no God, then the situation is different. Then we are driven back to being governed only by sentiment. Well, sentiment has its merits, and in many ways I think sentiment does much good. But if we allow it to run away with us, then it means an abandonment of principle, it means that we are governed by our emotions, and we sacrifice that great virtue of grit which has been such a great characteristic of our race.

This is no Party question. For generations the great majority of our predecessors in this House, of all creeds and all sections of opinion, have accepted the tradition that the Almighty reserved to Himself alone the power to decide the moment when life should become extinct. The noble Lord opposite comes down to-day with his Bill and asks us to usurp this right to ourselves, to ignore the Almighty in this respect, to insist on sharing this prerogative. I humbly submit that action of that kind partakes of the nature of an impertinence which we should do well to avoid, and I hope your Lordships will not allow the Second Reading of this Bill. I beg to move.

Second Reading of the Voluntary Euthanasia (Legalisation) Bill HL
A speech against the proposed legislation by Viscount Fitzalan of Derwent
House of Lords: Hansard (Westminster, UK), Vol. 101, November 4, 1936, columns 477–480.

About the speaker
Edmund Bernard Fitzalan-Howard, 1st Viscount Fitzalan of Derwent (1855–1947) was a British Conservative
politician. Before he was raised to the peerage, he served from 1894 to 1921 as a Conservative member of
the House of Commons for the seat of Chichester in West Sussex. He later served briefly under Arthur
Balfour as a Lord of the Treasury in 1905 and under H.H. Asquith and later David Lloyd George as
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury from 1915 to 1921 (jointly from December 1916 onwards). In 1918
he was sworn into the Privy Council. In 1921 he was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the first Roman
Catholic to be appointed to the position since 1685 during the reign of King James II. However, his tenure as
Lord Lieutenant lasted only a year and a half. The post was abolished with the coming into existence of the
Irish Free State and its constitution in 1922.