Young Australian woman is planning her doctor-assisted suicide

Published on May 5, 2026May 5, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

The 26-year-old Australian woman with a life-limiting illness has announced plans to end her life sometime this year. Although she was once against assisted suicide, she changed her mind after becoming ill. Of your charity, please spare a prayer for Annaliese, that she may reconsider her decision and learn of God’s unlimited love for her and of the redemptive power of suffering.

by Kathy Clubb. This article first appeared at LifeSiteNews.

A 26-year-old Australian woman with a life-limiting illness has announced plans to end her life via assisted suicide sometime this year.

It’s impossible to hear the story of Annaliese Holland and not be sympathetic to her plight. Annaliese suffers from a devastating condition called Autoimmune Autonomic Ganglionopathy (AAG), which has left her in constant pain and unable to process solid food. Many of her organs have shut down and she has a permanent line into her heart for sustenance. Although AAG is not terminal in every case, since Annaliese was diagnosed later in life, the delay in treatment means she could die within a year.

Annaliese has stated that prior to her diagnosis with AAG eight years ago, she had been against assisted suicide, but her views changed after meeting another AAG patient, Lily Thai. Annaliese recalls that the girls encouraged one another with the thought of going to heaven and being able to eat again.

They were close friends until Lily took her life in 2023 under the newly-passed voluntary assisted dying (VAD) legislation in their home state of South Australia. Annaliese says that the experience of holding her friend’s hand as she was put to death made her see assisted suicide as an option for the first time.

Earlier in her illness, Annaliese did not raise the issue of assisted suicide in her public statements, focusing instead on good palliative care and raising awareness of the hospice system. In fact, Annaliese once cited actor Michael J. Fox as being an inspiration to her; Fox has lived for 35 years with the neurodegenerative condition, Parkinson’s disease.

Under South Australian law, medical professionals are prohibited from initiating a discussion about VAD, so since the death of her friend, Annaliese has used her own experience as a way of promoting assisted suicide. Her social media channels chronicle the gruelling daily regime which keeps her alive – for now. Injections, feeding tubes, and frequent hospital visits are all documented online. She describes her version of a bucket list, sharing posts about her completing various experiences such as witnessing a birth, holding a baby, and “getting married,” albeit without a groom.

Annaliese’s story adds to the prominent and very positive treatment of assisted suicide by the Australian media. This has been amplified by the recent death of popular radio host, James Valentine. Valentine, a long-time advocate of VAD, chose to end his own life after battling oesophageal cancer for two years. Following his death, his family released a statement which read: “Throughout his illness, James did it his way, which lasted all the way until the end. Both he and his family are grateful he was given the option to go out on his own terms.”

Annaliese echoes those same sentiments, telling an interviewer, “At 21, I realised I was terminal. At 26, I’m choosing to die on my own terms.”

Annaliese’s choice to take her own life is given a further gloss of legitimization by interviews with the doctor who will be assisting with her death, Dr. Chloe Furst. In Annaliese’s own words, Furst is “passionate and loving” and a “beautiful human.” Many would not agree, believing that a doctor who encourages and helps a patient to kill herself is morally guilty of murder.

Both Annaliese and Furst recently received a joint “Woman of the Year” award from a media outlet based in their home town of Adelaide, South Australia. This award further cements the idea in the public’s mind that assisted suicide is a laudable and “brave” decision.

Describing medical professions who are opposed to assisted suicide, Furst says that someone’s “own moral objection shouldn’t infringe on someone else’s opportunity to access [VAD].”

Annaliese agrees, explaining her experience with doctors who are opposed to euthanasia:

I had a bit of a fight with a few doctors about it because not everyone believes in it. But it’s something that needs to be spoken about and needs to be brought up because it is a choice and no-one’s saying you have to do it.

Although her positive outlook is itself inspirational in many ways, it is a great tragedy that this young woman feels she must cut her life short. Likewise, it is tragic that her family is allowing her to choose VAD, apparently without any objections. She says her father “understands” and her mother, while saying she “hopes for a miracle,” also says she is realistic about her daughter’s prognosis.

This stands in contrast to the case of the young Spanish woman, Noelia Castillo Ramos, who opted for assisted suicide despite her father fighting for years to stop her premature death. Noelia’s best friend attempted at the last moment to get her to reconsider, but was blocked by hospital staff. Strangers from the pro-life community who heard about her decision held a silent vigil at the hospital as she died. It is tragic that there seems to be no-one willing to challenge Annaliese Holland in her bid to commit suicide.

Read the rest at LifeSiteNews

UK’s assisted suicide legislation has fallen! Or has it?

Published on April 30, 2026April 30, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

Angus Saul of the Christian Institute writes that although the UK’s proposed assisted suicide law has failed this time around, its permanent rejection can’t be taken for granted.

Today was the final day of scheduled debate for Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill, and, as we have known for some time, there were too many issues with the legislation for it to make it through the House of Lords before it was timed out. As such, it will officially fall at the end of the Parliamentary session next week.

For 18 months, we have been briefing MPs and Peers about the Bill, as well as communicating to our supporters how dangerous it would be, and letting them know how they could help. Many of you got in touch with politicians on several occasions, and we know from what has been said in Parliament that communications from supporters like you have helped to change people’s minds. If that was you, thank you for being a Christian influence on this life and death issue.

But we cannot rest on our laurels, because we know Dignity in Dying, Kim Leadbeater, and other parliamentarians of a similar persuasion, are very keen for legislation on assisted suicide to be passed, and they are already planning how to revive this legislation.

How can that happen?

Private Member’s Bills

There are a variety of tactics pro-assisted suicide politicians could choose, but the most likely way will be to bring forward another Private Member’s Bill.

Any MP can enter the ballot to bring forward a Bill, with over 400 entering each parliamentary session, but only 20 are selected. The majority of these will only get a very short amount of time in Parliament, and are used merely to highlight issues, rather than being serious attempts to change the law. In practice, an MP must rank in the top five or six in the ballot to have any chance of their proposal becoming law.

Given that Government business always takes precedence over Private Member’s Bills, usually only simple, tightly-worded Bills aimed at addressing a specific, narrow issue, can make it through the parliamentary process in the limited time available. Kim Leadbeater came top of the ballot last session, meaning she had the maximum time available of any Private Member’s Bill. But even with the particularly long parliamentary session, she was unable to push through the deeply complex and controversial legislation.

This makes the process problematic for any new assisted suicide Bill. While there are certainly a number of MPs who are strongly in favour of assisted suicide, they would need to place perhaps in the top two or three in the ballot, given that the legislation is likely to need a lot of time due to its complexities.

Parliament Acts

The process could be hurried along though if the Parliament Acts were invoked, and this is something that Lord Falconer, co-sponsor to Kim Leadbeater’s Bill, has threatened.

In a nutshell, a new Bill would have to be more or less identical to the Bill that was voted through by the House of Commons in June 2025, though it may incorporate some amendments that have been made by the House of Lords since. If MPs vote in favour of it, and then Peers try to reject or change it, the Commons can bypass the House of Lords and push through a virtually unchanged Bill.

However, this too is complicated and carries a high level of risk for supporters of the new Bill. Because if any changes are made by MPs at Committee Stage, then the Bill would no longer qualify under the Parliament Acts, and so it would still face the same level of scrutiny in the House of Lords and could be changed or rejected by them. But if no changes are made, the legislation would be less likely to be passed by MPs again, given the huge flaws that have been highlighted by the House of Lords. Many MPs only voted to send the Leadbeater Bill to the House of Lords because they expected Peers to make amendments to improve the workability and safeguards.

We should expect pro-assisted suicide MPs to attempt a number of different strategies to try to force something onto the statute book, and so we must continue to pray and to contact our MPs.

by Angus Saul of the Christian Institute. The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom and elsewhere” and “the advancement of education”. It is a nondenominational Christian charity with more than 60,000 supporters throughout the UK, including more than 5,000 churches and is committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception.

Death as a way out: a tragic euthanasia precedent in Spain

Published on March 27, 2026March 30, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

At the time of publishing, the young woman in question had already been killed by euthanasia and her organs harvested. This was a tragedy of epic proportions which was totally unavoidable, had Neolia Ramos been given the support she deserved.

by Jennifer Diaz at Evangelical Focus

Noelia Castillo Ramos is a 25-year-old woman from Barcelona, Spain, who will end her life through euthanasia on 26 March, after a long legal battle. Her controversial case has attracted widespread media attention in Spain.

The last few years of Noelia’s life have been marked by intense pain. She was diagnosed with BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder) at a young age, a serious condition that causes emotional instability, a profound sense of emptiness and fantasies of self-harm.

She has been under state guardianship since the age of 13. Due to their limited financial situation, her parents have had to rely on public resources for her care.

In 2022, she was raped, the details of which remain largely unknown. This traumatic event was the breaking point in her life. Afterwards, she attempted suicide by jumping from a fifth-floor window. She survived, but was left paraplegic.

Since then, she has had to use a wheelchair and take different medications to relieve the pain. Although these medications are effective, they cause her severe side effects.

After conducting several mental capacity tests and treatments, the psychiatrists who treated Noelia concluded that, despite her BPD, she was capable of making decisions about her life and death.

However, her story portrays profound pain, traumatic events and a BPD diagnosis, which at least partially clouds the autonomy attributed to her by the doctors, since BPD can severely affect a person’s emotions and undoubtedly impact decision-making.

In 2023, a discharge report concluded that Noelia was medically stable and her physical pain was under control. Nevertheless, despite all her father’s efforts to change her mind, on 10 April 2024 she officially requested euthanasia from the Catalan Commission for the Guarantee and Evaluation of Rights.

Just a couple of months later, on 18 July 2024, the commission accepted the request.

Noelia gave a final television interview before her death, in which she reaffirmed her decision to end her life with the support of her mother, although the latter made it clear that she did not want this ending for her daughter either.

The family is actually divided on the issue. Her father sought help from the Christian lawyers association, arguing that Noelia was not psychologically capable of making that decision. Against his wishes, the process continues.

This case sets a dangerous precedent in Spanish society, suggesting that a life of extreme suffering is no longer “worthy” of being lived.

Ours is a failed state that allows its citizens to resort to death not only for physical pain, but also for mental illness, as in Noelia’s case.

The 2021 Organic Law regulating euthanasia in Spain was originally approved for people suffering from a chronic, incurable illness that causes significant pain. This was based on the new individual right, namely the autonomy to exercise freedom over one’s own life and death.

Between June 2021 and mid 2025, euthanasia has been applied to 1,034 people in Spain.

But, as anticipated, there is currently no clear definition of what constitutes this type of painful illness. This case raises the question: Do depression, various personality disorders and borderline personality disorder fall under this category? The answer seems to be yes.

We look with concern to a future that already seems dystopian, because depression is currently spreading throughout the world like a pandemic, and Spain is one of the countries with the highest suicide rates among young people.

Can the solution to this mental health crisis be entrusted to the state? Does society have the necessary tools to respond to profound suffering? Noelia’s case suggests it does not.

The state is making a serious mistake by believing that the dignity of life can be defined in terms of suffering.

It would be wise to view with suspicion this law based on the right to personal autonomy, which ignores that life is not the absolute private property of the individual, but rather has an origin and purpose that transcend the person.

God breathed the breath of life into Noelia, created her and was pleased to see her born, so that she might know Him and find the meaning of her life in Him.

Noelia’s pain is real and her desire to end her suffering is legitimate and entirely understandable. However, even though she is broken inside and has lost the will to live, Noelia was made in the image of God. Her life has incalculable value.

This is a heartbreaking story that should move us deeply. We live in a time of a total loss of the value of human life, where people have become disposable consumer goods. Society was unable to restore hope to Noelia, and then offered her the quick way out, disguised as ‘dignified’: death.

That is quite the opposite of the message of the Gospel, which delves into the heart of suffering to redeem it — not necessarily to eliminate it. God can redeem a life, even in such extreme circumstances.

Job longed for death; Elijah cried out to God to take his life; but undoubtedly, the most extreme case of physical and emotional pain was suffered by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus is an expert in impossible causes; he is the Lord of those who seek him, of the brokenhearted; he is the comforter and the giver of hope.

The state surrendered too quickly with Noelia; God would never have done so, and neither should we surrender to the suffering of others by offering death as a solution.

This article first appeared at Evangelical Focus and is republished under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 license.

New assisted suicide data from WA reveals hard truths

Published on November 28, 2025November 28, 2025 by EF TeamLeave a comment

The majority of Western Australians who died by assisted suicide last year were motivated by being ‘less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable, or concerned about it.’

Western Australia has experienced a startling increase in the number of medically-assisted deaths. Last week the Western Australian government released its latest data on assisted suicide, showing a 63 percent increase in the number of deaths. While 293 patients accessed assisted suicide during the 2023–24 period, there were 480 assisted suicides from 2024-25.

This increase means that voluntary assisted dying (VAD) deaths now represent 2.6 percent of the 18,380 total deaths in Western Australia. The youngest person to die after taking a VAD drug was only 23 years old, although the median age of patients was 77.

This is the fourth annual report made by the government since the introduction of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2019 and reveals much about the realities of assisted suicide.

The report begins with a poetic description of the impact of assisted suicide, out of place in an official bureaucratic report. Using the metaphor of a pebble dropping into a pond creating concentric waves, the report’s author endeavours to show empathy for patients and their support networks:

When a pebble drops into a pond of still water there is an initial splash followed by a series of concentric waves that steadily flow to the edge of the pond. So it is, when an eligible person who will die soon, and is suffering in a manner unacceptable to themselves, makes the choice for voluntary assisted dying. The choice of the person at the centre is felt by their community and the dedicated people who work to support the voluntary assisted dying process […]

However, a closer look reveals an attempt to set the stage for increased funding for the services, as the report highlights the need for more trained practitioners, pharmacists, care navigators, and voluntary assisted dying coordinators within the Western Australian [WA] health system.

Patient reasons for choosing to die

According to the act, eligibility criteria include having at least one disease, illness, or medical condition likely to cause death within a period of six months, or 12 months for neurodegenerative conditions, and is causing suffering to the person that “cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable.”

Although proponents would have the public believe that most patients choose to die because they are experiencing intolerable pain, the report shows that this is not the case. Rather, while some patients do cite pain as their reason, a greater number say they made the decision because they feared a loss of enjoyment or loss of autonomy.

The majority of patients, 68.3 percent, gave as their primary reason for choosing to end their lives being “less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable, or concerned about it.” In fact, for three out of four reporting years, this has been cited as the primary motive.

“Losing autonomy or concern about it” and “Losing dignity or concern about it” were the second and third most common reasons, both at 58 percent. Less than half of the patients cited “inadequate pain control or concern about it” as their main reason for pursuing assisted suicide.

Horrific testimonials

Included in the report were quotes from family members and medical professionals which indicate the failure of patient support networks to encourage them to choose life over an early death.

The following account, made by the friend of a patient, exemplifies the tendency of many caregivers to guide suicidal patients into “voluntary assisted dying” rather than support them in choosing life. The choice discussed is not between a natural death and medical killing but between solitary suicide and assisted suicide:

During that early stage [following diagnosis], [my friend] was more convinced than ever that [suicide] was the way to go. Much of my discussion with [my friend] was trying to convince him that the VAD process available to him would be a far better outcome for the family. It was interesting to see the changes in his thinking as he progressed through the different visits from and phone calls with the VAD team…. Initially he was sceptical, then moved to wanting to self-administer and finally, after his final meeting, he accepted that having [Care Navigator] and [practitioner] take on this final task was the correct way to go.

Another account shows how that the idea of assisted suicide is thought to be preferable to patient-initiated suicide:

[My father considered] suicide…. One shudders to think of the accidental consequences which may arise by … suicidal misadventure. The horrors of illegal procedures are best avoided by facilitating slick information, process and access…. Thank goodness VAD is now available in WA. My father passed away very peacefully, surrounded by his loving family.

The stories reinforce the false narrative that assisted suicide is dignified and painless, even though this is often not the case. One report from Oregon, for example, states that patients may take up to 47 hours to die – this is hardly the “quick and painless” option put forward by proponents of VAD.

The Western Australian testimonials include several statements which seem designed to support a push for the removal of practitioner conscience rights, including the following:

“Conscientious objection and the [private hospital’s] approach seem to be causing distress to patients and family, both … during the admission and also continuing after their discharge, particularly when transferred elsewhere for end of life care. It is also causing delays that, for many patients, mean they will not be able to access VAD.” — Health practitioner

Read the rest at LifeSite News.

The ramifications of denial of doctors’ conscience rights

Published on November 28, 2025November 29, 2025 by EF TeamLeave a comment

Dr. Mark Hobart is an Australian GP in the state of Victoria, who was unjustly targeted for his stance against government overreach during the COVID pandemic. When it became known that he was writing exemptions from the mandatory, experimental mRNA vaccines, Dr. Hobart’s clinic, located in the Melbourne western suburb of Sunshine, was raided by the authorities and he subsequently was suspended from practising medicine. In this article, Dr. Hobart looks at three areas of Victorian health law which violate the conscience rights of medical doctors and other health professionals.

By Dr. Mark Hobart

In Victoria first we had denial of conscience with regards to abortion in 2008. Then we had the denial of conscience with regards to the Covid gene therapy in 2021 . And now it is legislated that we have denial of conscience with regards to the promotion of euthanasia. These three government directives lead to the inability of the doctor to give his or her independent opinion regarding abortion, covid injections and euthanasia.

Abortion

According to the Victorian 2008 Abortion Law Reform Act,¹ a request for abortion to a doctor who has a conscientious objection to abortion must be referred to a doctor who does not have a conscientious objection to abortion:

ABORTION LAW REFORM ACT 2008 – SECTION 8

Obligations of registered health practitioner who has conscientious objection
(1) If a woman requests a registered health practitioner to advise on a proposed abortion, or to perform, direct, authorise or supervise an abortion for that woman, and the practitioner has a conscientious objection to abortion, the practitioner must—
(a) inform the woman that the practitioner has a conscientious objection to abortion; and
(b) refer the woman to another registered health practitioner in the same regulated health profession who the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion.

It is the case now that if the doctor advises against abortion and then refuses to refer, he will be breaking the 2008 ALR Act. This is especially worrying if the woman is being coerced.

I was cautioned for this in January 2014² by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) when I refused to refer a woman for an abortion at 19 1/2 weeks for gender selection because the unborn baby was female and they wanted a boy. So, in fact, if a woman says she wants an abortion, she must be referred for an abortion.

Covid injections

In March of 2021, AHPRA issued a position statement³ for registered health practitioners and students regarding the COVID-19 vaccination.

If you opposed the position statement, you would have been suspended, as happened to me and to four other Victorian doctors. From the position statement (emphasis added):

Conscientious objection
In the case of a conscientious objection about receiving, authorising, prescribing or administering COVID-19 vaccination, practitioners must inform their employer and/or other relevant colleagues (where necessary) of their objection as soon as reasonably practical. For example, a practitioner’s personal beliefs may form the basis of a conscientious objection to particular treatments. In addition to the above, it is important that practitioners inform their patient or client of their conscientious objection where relevant to the patient or client’s treatment or care. In informing their patient or client of a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, practitioners must be careful not to discourage their patient or client from seeking vaccination. Practitioners authorised to prescribe and/or administer the vaccine but who have a conscientious objection must ensure appropriate referral options are provided for vaccination.

While some health practitioners may have a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, all practitioners, including students on placement, must comply with local employer, health service or health department policies, procedures and guidelines relating to COVID-19 vaccination. Any queries about these should be directed towards the individual employer, health service, state or territory health department and/or education provider for registered students. National Boards regulate individual practitioners and not health services or state and territory health departments. Queries about COVID-19 vaccination programs should be directed to the Commonwealth, state and territory governments which are responsible for these programs.

COVID-19 vaccination information sharing and social media
National Boards expect all health practitioners to use their professional judgement and the best available evidence in practice. This includes when providing information to the public about public health issues such as COVID-19 and vaccination. When advocating for community and population health, health practitioners must also use their expertise and influence to protect and advance the health and wellbeing of individuals as well as communities and broader populations.

Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.
….
Health practitioners are reminded that it is an offence under the National Law to advertise a regulated health service4 (including via social media) in a way that is false, misleading or deceptive. Advertising that includes false, misleading or deceptive claims about COVID-19, including anti-vaccination material, may result in prosecution by AHPRA.

In November 2021 I was suspended by AHPRA because I gave temporary medical certificates, usually three months duration, to my patients who were being forced to have the Covid injection. Had they refused, they would have lost their jobs and/or had an injection which was dangerous to their health and/or also conflicted with their religious beliefs because the injections are made using aborted human foetal parts.

When I had the opportunity to ask them, about 50% of these patients had suicidal ideation about this, so I had no hesitation in giving them a three months certificate saying that they should not have the injection.

I am still suspended now four years later. I will finally have a trial in April 2026 in which AHPRA/the medical board will attempt to prove that I am guilty of professional misconduct and a danger to the Australian public.

I am one of only four doctors who have been suspended for this because we all stood up for this violation of one of the most basic of human rights: the right to be fully informed of your medical treatment and the right to refuse this treatment if you don’t want it.

Voluntary Assisted Dying

The Victorian government has amended⁴ the Voluntary Assisted Dying law to make it a requirement that doctors give information about VAD to their patients.

Possibly, from as early as December this year, doctors must advise that another practitioner may assist and give the person the information. You are also required to give information approved by the “secretary.”

From the amended legislation:⁵

“(2) If a registered medical practitioner or nurse practitioner who has a conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying refuses to provide information about voluntary assisted dying to a person requesting information about or access to voluntary assisted dying, the practitioner must—

(a) advise the person that another registered medical practitioner or nurse practitioner may be able to assist the person in relation to information about or access to voluntary assisted dying; and
(b) give the person the following information—
(i) contact details for the prescribed voluntary assisted dying care navigator service;
(ii) the address of an Internet site of the Department of Health that provides information about voluntary assisted dying.”.

Now we have Voluntary Assisted Dying. This should be called voluntary assisted suicide, but because assisted suicide is a crime listed in the Crimes Act with a penalty of five years in jail, it can’t be called that.

It can’t be called voluntary assisted death either, because it’s up to the patient to take the medication at their discretion. The doctor doesn’t need to wait around to make sure that the patient is dead, as the drug is supposed to kill them; this is usually phenobarbitone, which may or may not work. [See this article on why assisted suicide is neither dignified nor painless.]

Also the doctor writing the death certificate must not write that the patient has died from the ingestion of the lethal dose of medication, but record the terminal condition which led to the patient feeling that life is not worth living any more; for example, cancer, heart failure, multiple sclerosis or Neil Daniher’s motor neurone disease.

Now we come to the crunch. In past years, if you felt there was a genuine possibility that a patient would commit suicide, you would call the CATT team⁶ or the police surgeon to prevent it. In the more distant past, you could certify the patient yourself.

Yet according to this new legislation, if patients comes to you, as a doctor, requesting “assisted dying” and the information needed to access it, (i.e. they want to know how to commit suicide), instead of asking them why they want to commit suicide, you must give the advice on how to kill themselves, including information approved by the government secretary. I hope she’s a good secretary.

Implications for Catholic doctors

All the formerly Catholic hospitals are now influenced by the government to a large extent, for example St. Vincent’s and the Mercy Hospital in Melbourne. There are obviously others as well, and we have the example of the fate of the Calvary hospital in Canberra.

Obviously, these laws are insane. We are Catholic doctors. We cannot advise patients to kill themselves. We cannot stand by and not give a good counter argument to a woman who wants to abort her child. We cannot stand by and agree with a medical treatment that we think is dangerous and has been recommended to the patient because the government says it is justified.

On the other hand, if we act on our consciences, we will not be able to practise medicine in our society. It is not only doctors but nurses who are at risk. They certainly won’t be able to do general practice or obstetrics and gynaecology. Endocrinology and psychology will be a big problem, as will plastic surgery and other forms of surgery be problematic. These include paediatrics and paediatric surgery. The implications are endless.

I believe Catholics were excluded from the professions in England following the Elizabethan persecutions and that this continued until 1871. Such restrictions on faithful health professionals are being imposed in C21st Australia and must be opposed at every stage.

NSW assisted suicide amendment

Published on October 29, 2025November 24, 2025 by EF TeamLeave a comment

Currently before the NSW Parliament is a significant bill designed to restore the ability of faith-based aged care facilities to opt out of providing assisted dying services. Assisted suicide has been legal in New South Wales since 2022, and the amendment by Susan Carter MCL attempts to roll back the law by strengthening conscientious objections protections.

If passed, the amendment would protect faith-based aged care facilities from their current obligation to allow voluntary assisted dying services on their premises. In her Second Reading speech, Susan Carter said:

“The bill ensures that faith-based aged-care facilities are treated no differently from faith-based hospitals. For those families who, together with their ageing parent or grandparent, chose an environment based on faith that deeply respects the value of life, they want to know that the idea of the hastened death of their loved one is not part of the culture. This bill will assuage that anxiety and allow faith-based aged‑care facilities to fulfil their unique mission.”

Archbishop Anthony Fisher has been promoting the amendment, writing in his newsletter that:

Currently, the law requires our aged care homes to open their doors to kill teams to come in and give lethal doses to residents, even though this is contrary to the ethos of compassionate care upon which these facilities are founded. Pro-death activists are doing the rounds in media today, trying to frame this as an issue of taking choice away from aged care residents. But the truth is that so many people choose faith-based aged care because of our respect for every human life, and our assurance that we will care for each person until their natural death.

We know that our ethic of care is why so many residents and their families continually choose faith-based facilities. Our vulnerable elderly deserve the choice to live out their final days in a safe place where they know that euthanasia will never, ever be part of the conversation.

The Family First party has also given its support to the bill. Lyle Shelton wrote:

“Since euthanasia was legalised less than two years ago, 398 people have already died in just the first seven months of the scheme’s operation. The number will only have grown. Yet our law goes further than any other state in coercing religious facilities to participate in this culture of death. Even Victoria does not force Catholic or other faith-based homes to permit euthanasia on site.”

HOW YOU CAN HELP

NEW SOUTH WALES RESIDENTS

New South Wales residents are encouraged to write to their Legislative Council members asking them to vote in favour of the bill. Helpful information, including email addresses and a writing guide, can be found at this link.

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.